A Summer of Protests?
As we slowly exit the Covid19 ‘lockdown’ we have seen several protests in major cities. As life moves toward a more ‘normal’ footing and we enter the Summer months, protests may continue.
In this article, we explore some of the legal powers that regulate processions and assemblies. These can be found in the Public Order Act 1986.
Notifying the police in advance
Written notice shall be given in accordance with this section of any proposal to hold a public procession intended:
(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons,
(b) to publicise a cause or campaign, or
(c) to mark or commemorate an event,
unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession. Notice is not required where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held. Similarly, a funeral procession organised by a funeral director does not require notice.
The notice must specify:
(a) the date when it is intended to hold the procession,
(b) the time when it is intended to start it,
(c) its proposed route, and
(d) the name and address of the person (or of one of the persons) proposing to organise it.
Time limits apply to the service of notices.
Where a public procession is held, each of the persons organising it is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the requirements as to notice have not been satisfied, or
(b) the date when it is held, the time when it starts, or its route, differs from the date, time or route specified in the notice.
Police Conditions
The police can impose conditions. If the senior police officer, having regard to the time, place, the circumstances in which it is being held, its route or proposed route, reasonably believes that:
(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
(b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,
he may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the procession. These conditions should be necessary to prevent disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation. This can include conditions on the route or prohibiting entry to any public place specified in the directions.
A person who organises or takes part in a public procession, and knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed, is guilty of an offence. However, it is a defence for him to prove that the failure arose from circumstances beyond his control.
There are similar powers for assemblies of persons.
Prohibiting Processions
If at any time the chief officer of police reasonably believes that, because of particular circumstances existing in any district or part of a district, the powers to impose conditions will not be sufficient to prevent the holding of public processions in that district or part from resulting in serious public disorder, he shall apply to the council of the district for an order prohibiting for such period not exceeding 3 months as may be specified in the application the holding of all public processions (or of any class of public procession so specified) in the district or part concerned.
A person who organises a public procession, the holding of which he knows is prohibited by virtue of an order under this section is guilty of an offence. The same applies to a person taking part in such a procession.
If you need any advice on the holding of mass gatherings, including how best to work with police and local authorities to ensure a successful and safe protest, please get in touch with us.
We can advise on all manner of alleged offences under the Public Order Act and other relevant legislation.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
(Image: “protest” by jpbourque is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
Read MoreWhen Will I Be Sentenced?
In cases where there is more than one defendant, it is a common scenario that one or more pleads guilty, perhaps at an early stage, but others continue their case to trial. When should those who plead guilty early on be sentenced?
A question then arises as to whether those who have pleaded guilty earlier should be sentenced immediately, or at some other point.
The starting point is that a Judge should await the outcome of the other defendants trial, to be as fully appraised of the facts as possible.
In Payne (1950) 34 Cr. App. R. 43 the Court stated:
“It may be a very convenient course to sentence prisoners who plead Guilty on the first day, but that ought not to apply where several persons are indicted together and one pleads Guilty and the other or others Not Guilty. In such a case the proper course is to postpone sentence on the prisoner who has pleaded Guilty until the other or others have been tried and then to bring the prisoner who has pleaded Guilty up in the Court where the other or others have been tried and let all who have been convicted be dealt with together, because by that time the Court will be in possession of the facts relating to all of them and will be able to assess properly the degree of guilt among them.”
“It is a most inconvenient practice and it is a practice which is wrong and which ought to cease. [Courts] should be informed that where more than one prisoner is joined in an indictment and one pleads Guilty and the other or others plead Not Guilty, the sentencing of the first one should be postponed until the others have been tried and all whose guilt has been established should be sentenced together. I hope that [Courts] will take notice of the opinion of this Court and discontinue a practice which can only lead to disproportionate sentences being passed and will naturally leave a sense of grievance in the minds of prisoners.”
If a defendant who has pleaded is to give evidence for the prosecution it was the practice to sentence that defendant before giving evidence, but that rule is no longer followed, and the modern method is to default to the position of sentencing all defendants together.
Ultimately it is a matter of judicial discretion (Palmer (1994) 99 Cr. App. R. 83, CA.)
The default position remains the same for a co-defendant who is intending to give evidence on behalf of another defendant in the proceedings (Coffey (1982) 74 Cr. App. R. 168, CA.)
Where a defendant is in custody and has already likely served any sentence they would receive, this is a compelling argument for sentencing early. However, it again remains a matter for judicial discretion.
In almost all cases where a defendant has pleaded guilty, they want to be sentenced sooner rather than later, to accept the punishment and move on with their lives. Where appropriate, we will always advance a robust argument to the Court to persuade a Judge to sentence early.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More
Criminal Damage of Statues – Sentencing Implications
On Sunday 7 June protesters in Bristol tore down the statue of Edward Colston. It was swiftly deposited it in the local harbour. What many will see as being wholly justifiable, some will see as criminal damage.
The statute had been in situ for 125 years and had previously attracted a petition of over 10,000 names calling for its removal. This is due to Colston’s close connection to the slave trade.
The Home Secretary made this comment:
‘Sheer vandalism and disorder is completely unacceptable and its right the police follow up on that and make sure justice is undertaken.’
In contrast, the Mayor of Bristol commented:
‘I think that there’s a really incredible opportunity to talk about ourselves and to make a decision about what we think should go on a plinth in the city to tell us about who we are, not just who we are but who we want to be and to really use that as a place to celebrate something about ourselves, the best of ourselves. What I would look forward to is having that city discussion. In the meantime it’s highly likely that the Colston statue will end up in one of our museums.’
Was any offence committed?
The statue appears to be in the ownership/control of the City of Bristol. On that assumption, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 applies. It is difficult to envisage any sensible defence to the charge (see Kelleher [2003] EWCA Crim 3525).
The value of the statue will significantly exceed £5,000. As a result, the offence is one that carries a maximum prison sentence of up to 10 years. In addition, anyone convicted could face a hefty compensation claim to put right any damage.
Whilst many people will wonder why the statue remained in place given Colston’s tarnished reputation, it is likely that the courts will nonetheless take a dim view of the protesters actions, and possibly seek to discourage further like activity, mainly as there are probably many hundreds, if not thousands, of similar statues in our public places.
Deterrence
Deterrence may play an essential part in any sentencing exercise.
In 2003 Paul Kelleher was convicted after damaging a statue of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The court recording the following facts:
‘…on 3 July 2002 he visited the Guildhall Gallery, which houses the Corporation of London art collection, armed with a cricket bat and with the Intention of knocking the head off a statue of Lady Thatcher, that statue being on temporary loan from the House of Commons. The cricket bat proving ineffectual, Mr Kelleher took hold of a metal stanchion, which supported the cordon round the statue, and with that was able to achieve his purpose. We understand that the statue was damaged beyond repair and will cost £150,000 to replace.’
Kelleher received a sentence of imprisonment of 3 months. That was never the subject of any appeal (unlike the conviction), so we do not know what the Court of Appeal thought of the sentence. Many commentators at the time believed the sentence to be somewhat lenient.
Sentencing Guidelines for Criminal Damage
In terms of current sentencing guidelines, we can see that there is a high degree of culpability (High degree of planning or premeditation and Intention to cause very serious damage to property), and the offence possibly falls into the higher harm category (Serious consequential economic or social impact of offence).
Assuming some successful argument on the latter point, we get to a starting point of around six months. This is higher in length that Kelleher, but not substantially so.
Anyone convicted of this offence is at risk of a custodial sentence, with no certainty that it would be suspended.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More