Law & Justice

The Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill passed its second reading in the Commons on Tuesday evening and is now due to receive amendments and further debate. But having passed its first parliamentary hurdle it is likely to succeed. This Bill is one of this Government’s flagship pieces of legislation, a comprehensive reform of multiple aspects of the justice system, and among those reforms are increased restrictions on the right to protest. 

This Bill is problematic for two reasons: firstly, it fundamentally challenges the efficacy of protest by making disruption, which is at the heart of protest movements, illegal and secondly, it uses vague legal language which will dramatically increase police power when dealing with protesters.

The Bill empowers the police to end any stationary protest which ‘causes significant nuisance’, causes serious annoyance’ or is deemed seriously ‘disruptive’. It places restrictions on the level of noise a protest can cause and it shifts the burden of knowledge to the protestors, with the police being permitted to fine protestors for breaking laws they did not know existed. 

This Bill rests on the assumption that protests need not be disruptive in order to be effective. When charged with allegations that the Government is violating the right to protest, Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins responded by drawing a distinction between peaceful vigils and ‘very, very disruptive protests’. What seems truly at issue here are violent protests which border on riots, but instead of targeting those specifically this Bill attempts to curtail all disruptive social movements arguing that they should be restricted and that this does not infringe upon the public’s right to protest.

But noise, disruption and nuisance are entirely part of genuine protests; a real component of what gives them leverage. The most effective way to guarantee that the public discusses a movement and that the media covers the demands is to cause disruption. Extinction Rebellion was effective precisely because it was disruptive. For almost a week they dominated news headlines, gaining their cause a national profile. 

Furthermore, there is a long history of disruption being an effective catalyst for social change. When the Suffragists demonstrated in favour of women’s right to vote, or when the American civil rights movement sought to fundamentally change the fabric of their country, they both utilised disruption as a tool to promote change. In a 1977 paper Piven and Cloward concluded that when economic power is lacking, social movements must rely on disruption in order to promote change, and in fact this reliance on disruption is justified by its effectiveness, providing support for my argument that disruption is often an essential component for achieving reform.

Defenders of the Government’s stance might argue that the level of disruption the capital experienced over the summer is never justified, for instance the Sun described the Extinction Rebellion protesters as a ‘mob’, focusing on Londoners who faced lengthened commutes owing to the protests. However, this argument comes from a subjective judgement of the worthiness of the cause. Those who deny the severity of environmental change may indeed view Extinction Rebellion’s protests as unjustified. But would the same cries be heard if protests erupted for the rights of women, or racial injustices? We cannot defend legislation that affects all protest movements by arguing that the causes we do not agree with should not have the right to disrupt our lives. These new restrictions will apply universally, and they will come to impede social change we do believe in if nothing is done. 

Alternatively, it could be argued that disruption actually turns the public away from social movements, frustrating rather than informing them. Even if this is true, polling following the Extinction Rebellion disruption showed that the number of people rating climate as an issue they were concerned about was at its highest since 2008. While they may have frustrated the public, they succeeded in promoting discourse around their issue, which is the overarching goal of protest movements.

But, this legislation also goes much further than just limiting disruption. It empowers the police to prohibit protests which cause ‘serious annoyance or nuisance’. Importantly, serious nuisance and annoyance are not well-defined legal terms, broad in nature and could apply to almost any protest. Additionally, the legislation’s enforcement is defined in terms of annoyance to members of the public, but this is relative. The level of annoyance you experience from a protest depends entirely on your perspective, and from whose perspective are police to interpret the law, the environmental protestor or the morning commuter? 

Now the Bill is in the process of being passed, it may seem futile to continue to argue against it, but the fact remains that it will fundamentally change the way social movements occur in Britain. As a nation that has always prided ourselves on our respect for individual liberty, it would be a great shame to turn our back on that tradition. Frankly this Bill has little place in a modern democracy, especially one as proud of its liberal heritage as Britain. 

Frankie is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Vladimir Morozov]

Home Secretary Priti Patel MP says she’s tough on crime. If lower crime rates are her goal, she should turn her attention towards Britain’s prison system, currently churning out repeat offenders. With one of the highest imprisonment rates in Western Europe and at an occupancy level of 104% on average (and in some areas much higher), the pressure is building and something has to give. The UK must look to the example set by other nations and pursue prison reform.

At first glance, the Norwegian prison system may appear simply too expensive to be palatable, especially in an economy scarred by coronavirus. In Norway, a place at Halden Prison costs roughly £98,000 per year. But in England and Wales it costs £41,000, certainly a significant difference in cost.  However, these figures are not the end of the story.

In the UK, around 60% of released inmates go on to reoffend within a two-year period. But in Norway the reoffending rate is only 20% after two years. Partly as a result, Norway has almost three times fewer inmates than the UK, with prisons operating at a capacity of 73%, as opposed to 104% in England and Wales. 

The Norwegian comparison is highly illustrative of the benefits of long-term thinking when it comes to prison spending. As highlighted above, Norway spends a great deal more per prisoner than the UK. But significantly lower reoffending rates and the smaller prison population that means that in the long-term, it is Britain wasting money, not Norway. 

The reason that Norway is rewarded in the long-term for its higher spending is because the quality of prisons is directly correlated with the re-offending rate, well-established in academia. Prisons seclude criminals from the rest of society and so naturally ex-offenders find it difficult to readjust to normal life once they get out. If they find it difficult to reintegrate into society, for example, because of a lack of job opportunities, then they are more likely to “drift back to crime”. It is telling that in the UK, two-thirds of the adults who are reconvicted after one year of being released, “failed to find work”. 

In contrast, the Norwegian government funnels money into prisoners’ education and training. Prisoners emerge with employable qualifications and skills. As one ex-offender said, “I actually have no holes in my resumé”. 

However, a significant barrier to increased spending on prisoners’ rehabilitation in the UK may be a lack of public appetite for it. Forty-seven percent of Brits think punitive measures are important, with respondents suggesting that “prisons are too soft”.  It was also found that although British people recognised that Norway’s reoffending rates are significantly lower in comparison to the UK, and even more so compared to the USA, 64% of people viewed Norway’s system negatively in comparison to the USA’s tougher style. Such figures are demonstrative of the difficult road ahead for politicians who do want to seriously pursue prison reform in this country.

For politicians and campaigners, the best way forward is to highlight that Britain’s high reoffending rate costs taxpayers around £15bn a year and that a high initial investment to improve prison conditions will result in lower overall prison spending long-term. Furthermore, directing money towards Norwegian-style rehabilitative programmes does not just mean less money spent on prisoners, it also means saving on police time, legal aid and court costs, once the benefits of a lower reoffending rate is realised.

That is why the Government’s tough on crime rhetoric should also include reducing reoffending rates by improving our prison system. It is the logical way forward in terms of creating a safe society with less crime and in terms of using taxpayers’ hard-earned money effectively and sensibly. Reducing crime is a long game, and the Government should learn to play it.

Nina is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Chmee2]

Recently, terrorism has witnessed a gradual transition from the conventional ISIS strategy, which focused on maintaining territorial sovereignty in the Middle East, to a more global and decentralised model of insurgency. Consequently, this requires a reform in the counter-terrorism strategy of the UK, known as CONTEST.

The CONTEST strategy, which was updated last in June 2018, identified terrorism as one of the “highest priority risks to the UK.” This remains true in 2020, but the focus now needs to shift from the global threat of terrorism posed by ISIS and Al Qaeda to emphasising the control and reduction of home-grown radicalisation. The upsurge of domestic terrorism traces its origin to ISIS, but most extremists who have adopted this ideology have “never actually been in contact with it in Syria or Iraq.” 

The rise of unpredictable lone wolf tactics across Europe highlights the challenging threat posed by individual radicalisation. The scope of lone actor terrorism encompasses everything from right wing fanaticism to religiously inspired Islamic extremism. Despite the lack of organisation and absence of technical training provided by terrorist organisations, lone actors often attain their goals of uprooting the society and causing psychological damage, with the 2011 Norway attacks which killed 77 people being the most notable example. 

Extremists increasingly prefer lone actor approaches as it requires less equipment and organisation. Moreover, a driving factor in the lone actor approach is the utilisation of the internet as the primary channel to propagandise extremist beliefs, upload manifestos and download training material. 

The most controversial aspect of the CONTEST strategy is the Prevent programme, which focuses on challenging the ideology behind violent extremism, disrupting those who promote it and supporting individuals who may be vulnerable to recruitment by terrorist organisations. 

The effectiveness of the Prevent programme has been contested due to its narrow understanding of extremism and the massively disproportionate focus of the Prevent programme towards organised Islamic terrorism, which differs from the lone actor attacks that have emerged as the new face of terrorism in Britain. 

Additionally, the sole focus on Islamic terrorism leads to a sense of alienation amongst the Muslim population, which could be utilised by terrorist organisations to bolster their recruiting process and radicalisation. Therefore, the Prevent programme can herald the application of an “in group vs. out group” mentality by terrorist organisations to recruit people. Hence, CONTEST might be exacerbating the issues at hand rather than accomplishing its goal of counter-terrorism.

Regarding the escalation of home-grown radicalisation, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu stated that up to 80% of those who wanted to attack the UK were Britain-born or raised, which suggests issues of radicalisation are found in the societal fabric of Britain. Basu emphasised the urgent need to assimilate counter-terrorism policing along with other policies on social inclusion, mobility and education. 

In light of terrorist attacks that have occurred at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019 and in Streatham Hill in February 2020, the government introduced the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill, which encompasses the toughening of sentences and an end to early release of terrorist offenders. However, emergency counter-terrorism measures to delay the early release of terrorists and lengthen sentences may not serve as an effective solution to escalating terrorism as it only restrains former terrorists but does not address the root causes.

CONTEST requires a reform in its approach to tackle a broader classification of extremism. To achieve the primary goals of the Prevent programme, a broader array of extremism needs to be targeted and controlled. The CONTEST strategy requires stronger focus on the rehabilitation of former terrorists and their assimilation and reintegration into mainstream society. Finally, the strengthening of CONTEST demands proactive steps to reduce the number of lone actor attacks specifically.

Anahad Khangura is a postgraduate student at King’s College London and a Bright Blue member. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.