Zonk
10-01-2004, 02:26 PM
PLEASE CIRCULATE & RESPOND TO THE CONSULTATION IF YOU CAN.
The Government is proposing yet another extension of the law which will
affect the right to dissent and protest - Modernising Police Powers to
Meet Community Needs. As the Guardian article below says, the proposals
'are extraordinary in (its) scope'. It is expected to be included in
the Queen's Speech in November and has a short consultation period with
ends next Friday 8th October.
The proposals affecting dissent and protest include a 'super warrant'
allowing the police to search any property associated with an
individual, allowing police to arrest people for all offences, a new
offence of harassment aimed at stopping protest outside people's homes,
banning or controlling protest outside Parliament, extending the use of
DNA and other identification techniques.
The idea of banning/controlling all protest near parliament is a
response to Brian Haw's protest of over 3 years opposite Parliament.
Various authorities have tried different ways of getting rid of him but
haven't been able to do it legally in a way which he has not
successfully challenged. While a number of MPs have spoken out in
parliament against this kind of new legislation it may be that, on the
back of the Countryside Alliance protests, the idea of banning or
controlling protest outside Parliament will gain momentum and be seen as
acceptable for security reasons.
To download the document from the Home Office website, see:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/modernising_powers.html (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/modernising_powers.html)
The closing date for responses to the consultation is 8 October 2004
Responses can be emailed to:
Alan.Brown@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk (Alan.Brown@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk)
Or addressed in writing to:
Alan Brown
Police Leadership and Powers Unit
2nd Floor Allington Towers
19 Allington Street
London SW1E 5EB
*****************************************
This is about politics, not policing
Crime is at a record low, so why does Labour talk of crackdowns?
John Kampfner
Friday August 13, 2004
The Guardian
When a government floats changes to the criminal justice system, look
for the context as much as the content. The political parties are using
the summer to test-run ideas ahead of a frenetic election year. There
can be no other reason why David Blunkett has, two days after a speech
from Michael Howard, decided to unveil another pot-pourri of ideas in
the never-ending "battle" against crime.
The consultation document, Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community
Needs, is extraordinary in its scope. It ranges from allowing police to
arrest people for all offences, extending the use of DNA, giving
community support officers (CSOs) more powers, potentially banning all
protest near parliament, making search warrants apply to every home of a
suspect, and making it harder for animal rights protesters to harass
scientists - all this in one bill coming our way in the Queen's speech
in November. Why else would ministers have set the consultation period
at exactly eight weeks, if not to give them just enough time to frame
the outlines of legislation for the next parliamentary session?
The issue for the government is to prove that these measures are needed,
that as ever on this issue, the benefits - reduction in crime - outweigh
the human rights ramifications. The issue for civil libertarians is the
reverse. For the moment both sides have only broad principles to go on.
Ministers said yesterday that the idea of making all offences
arrestable, including dropping litter, was nothing more than a
tidying-up exercise. This might seem strange given that the police were
not bothered by the situation as it stood. Until now, officers could
arrest a suspect only if the offence was punishable by a prison term of
five years or more, if it had been listed as an exception to that rule
(such as kerb crawling), or if the officer believed a breach of the
peace had been committed. Offences that do not fall into this category
include impersonation of a police officer, failure to heed an order to
hand in a passport, unauthorised access to obscene computer material, or
the sale of a weapon.
Hazel Blears, Blunkett's deputy, suggested that officers would have to
prove a "necessity test" before making arrests. She also claimed the
reforms were not designed to increase the number of arrests, but merely
to make the process simpler. Maybe she is right. Everyone knows that if
a policeman wants to arrest you, he will find a reason, and breach of
the peace has always done the job. But is that enough reason to
legislate again?
As for the other proposals, CSOs are beginning to perform a useful
function as a cheap substitute for police, so giving them more powers
might be helpful. But should they be allowed to operate in plain
clothes? Surely the whole idea was to reassure the public of an official
presence on the streets. Then there is the "super warrant", allowing
police to search any property a suspect is deemed to be associated with.
Perhaps that is needed in limited cases, but does the home of the
mother-in-law where the suspect kipped for a few nights fall into that
category? In the case of drug dealers, should the refusal to submit to a
strip search be admissible in court?
Perhaps the most worrying item is the idea of banning all demonstrations
outside the Palace of Westminster. We know why the government wants to
do it. Labour MPs have complained about the ever-present protest against
the Iraq war opposite the Commons, where their cars sweep in. These
people do not pose a security threat. The police have checked them
enough times to know.
The detail of the changes will emerge only after the two-month
consultation. But the record of the Home Office is a rush to legislate
imprecisely. For example, one of the effects of the 2000 Terrorism Act
was to give police powers to detain people across London they suspect of
endangering national security. This led to a number of instances of
random detentions of peaceful protesters, most famously outside an arms
fair in Docklands. When blank cheques replace carefully proscribed
powers, the problem is not so much the badly trained officer, but the
badly framed legislation.
Over the past decade this government and its Tory predecessor have
introduced more than 30 criminal justice acts. This is about politics,
not policing. On Tuesday Howard teamed up with "Robocop" Ray Mallon, the
mayor of Middlesbrough and importer into the UK of "zero tolerance"
policing in the mid-90s, to pledge another crackdown on crime. Talk, and
legislation, is cheap. The Labour government is trying to have it both
ways. It says on the one hand that crime has reached record low levels;
on the other it competes with the Conservatives in the language of
"crackdowns". If the news is as good as ministers say, they should
proclaim it and leave it at that. They should ensure the country has
enough police officers to deal with crime, and just for once leave them
to get on with the job.
· John Kampfner is political editor of the New Statesman
www.jkampfner.net (http://www.jkampfner.net)
--
Emma Sangster
The Government is proposing yet another extension of the law which will
affect the right to dissent and protest - Modernising Police Powers to
Meet Community Needs. As the Guardian article below says, the proposals
'are extraordinary in (its) scope'. It is expected to be included in
the Queen's Speech in November and has a short consultation period with
ends next Friday 8th October.
The proposals affecting dissent and protest include a 'super warrant'
allowing the police to search any property associated with an
individual, allowing police to arrest people for all offences, a new
offence of harassment aimed at stopping protest outside people's homes,
banning or controlling protest outside Parliament, extending the use of
DNA and other identification techniques.
The idea of banning/controlling all protest near parliament is a
response to Brian Haw's protest of over 3 years opposite Parliament.
Various authorities have tried different ways of getting rid of him but
haven't been able to do it legally in a way which he has not
successfully challenged. While a number of MPs have spoken out in
parliament against this kind of new legislation it may be that, on the
back of the Countryside Alliance protests, the idea of banning or
controlling protest outside Parliament will gain momentum and be seen as
acceptable for security reasons.
To download the document from the Home Office website, see:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/modernising_powers.html (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/modernising_powers.html)
The closing date for responses to the consultation is 8 October 2004
Responses can be emailed to:
Alan.Brown@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk (Alan.Brown@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk)
Or addressed in writing to:
Alan Brown
Police Leadership and Powers Unit
2nd Floor Allington Towers
19 Allington Street
London SW1E 5EB
*****************************************
This is about politics, not policing
Crime is at a record low, so why does Labour talk of crackdowns?
John Kampfner
Friday August 13, 2004
The Guardian
When a government floats changes to the criminal justice system, look
for the context as much as the content. The political parties are using
the summer to test-run ideas ahead of a frenetic election year. There
can be no other reason why David Blunkett has, two days after a speech
from Michael Howard, decided to unveil another pot-pourri of ideas in
the never-ending "battle" against crime.
The consultation document, Modernising Police Powers to Meet Community
Needs, is extraordinary in its scope. It ranges from allowing police to
arrest people for all offences, extending the use of DNA, giving
community support officers (CSOs) more powers, potentially banning all
protest near parliament, making search warrants apply to every home of a
suspect, and making it harder for animal rights protesters to harass
scientists - all this in one bill coming our way in the Queen's speech
in November. Why else would ministers have set the consultation period
at exactly eight weeks, if not to give them just enough time to frame
the outlines of legislation for the next parliamentary session?
The issue for the government is to prove that these measures are needed,
that as ever on this issue, the benefits - reduction in crime - outweigh
the human rights ramifications. The issue for civil libertarians is the
reverse. For the moment both sides have only broad principles to go on.
Ministers said yesterday that the idea of making all offences
arrestable, including dropping litter, was nothing more than a
tidying-up exercise. This might seem strange given that the police were
not bothered by the situation as it stood. Until now, officers could
arrest a suspect only if the offence was punishable by a prison term of
five years or more, if it had been listed as an exception to that rule
(such as kerb crawling), or if the officer believed a breach of the
peace had been committed. Offences that do not fall into this category
include impersonation of a police officer, failure to heed an order to
hand in a passport, unauthorised access to obscene computer material, or
the sale of a weapon.
Hazel Blears, Blunkett's deputy, suggested that officers would have to
prove a "necessity test" before making arrests. She also claimed the
reforms were not designed to increase the number of arrests, but merely
to make the process simpler. Maybe she is right. Everyone knows that if
a policeman wants to arrest you, he will find a reason, and breach of
the peace has always done the job. But is that enough reason to
legislate again?
As for the other proposals, CSOs are beginning to perform a useful
function as a cheap substitute for police, so giving them more powers
might be helpful. But should they be allowed to operate in plain
clothes? Surely the whole idea was to reassure the public of an official
presence on the streets. Then there is the "super warrant", allowing
police to search any property a suspect is deemed to be associated with.
Perhaps that is needed in limited cases, but does the home of the
mother-in-law where the suspect kipped for a few nights fall into that
category? In the case of drug dealers, should the refusal to submit to a
strip search be admissible in court?
Perhaps the most worrying item is the idea of banning all demonstrations
outside the Palace of Westminster. We know why the government wants to
do it. Labour MPs have complained about the ever-present protest against
the Iraq war opposite the Commons, where their cars sweep in. These
people do not pose a security threat. The police have checked them
enough times to know.
The detail of the changes will emerge only after the two-month
consultation. But the record of the Home Office is a rush to legislate
imprecisely. For example, one of the effects of the 2000 Terrorism Act
was to give police powers to detain people across London they suspect of
endangering national security. This led to a number of instances of
random detentions of peaceful protesters, most famously outside an arms
fair in Docklands. When blank cheques replace carefully proscribed
powers, the problem is not so much the badly trained officer, but the
badly framed legislation.
Over the past decade this government and its Tory predecessor have
introduced more than 30 criminal justice acts. This is about politics,
not policing. On Tuesday Howard teamed up with "Robocop" Ray Mallon, the
mayor of Middlesbrough and importer into the UK of "zero tolerance"
policing in the mid-90s, to pledge another crackdown on crime. Talk, and
legislation, is cheap. The Labour government is trying to have it both
ways. It says on the one hand that crime has reached record low levels;
on the other it competes with the Conservatives in the language of
"crackdowns". If the news is as good as ministers say, they should
proclaim it and leave it at that. They should ensure the country has
enough police officers to deal with crime, and just for once leave them
to get on with the job.
· John Kampfner is political editor of the New Statesman
www.jkampfner.net (http://www.jkampfner.net)
--
Emma Sangster