Law behind Coronation arrests too broad – Tory MP

By Jasmine Andersson

BBC News

A controversial new law under which six anti-monarchy protesters were arrested on Coronation day has been criticised as too crude and too broad.

Ex-Greater Manchester police chief Sir Peter Fahy said “poor police officers” were left to interpret the law “passed only a few days” before the Coronation.

Conservative MP David Davis has called for the law to be scrutinised by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

But the government said it is “the right legislation.”

Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, was one of those arrested and said he will take legal action against the Metropolitan Police after he was arrested and released without charge by police after changes to the Public Order Act.

The Met said a review found there was no proof the six protesters, who were arrested when their vehicle was stopped near the procession route, were suspected of planning to use “lock on” devices.

Recent changes to the law, passed last week, have made it illegal for protesters to use “lock on” equipment to secure themselves to things like railings.

The force later expressed “regret” that those arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters after finding no proof of finding intent to use the items in this way.

Mr Smith, who is from Bristol, said he had received a personal apology, but it was not enough.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday that he had been in “close conversation” with the Met for four months about the group’s protest plans ahead of the Coronation.

Former Greater Manchester police chief Sir Peter said he gave evidence in Parliament expressing his concern that the new law was “poorly defined and far too broad”.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We see the consequences of that, particularly for the poor police officers who have to make sense of legislation that was only passed a few days ago.

“This law could affect all sorts of protests in your local community, and this legislation could be used against you, and the police would be under pressure.

“The government have actually reduced the amount of discretion the police have in getting the balance right.”

Former cabinet minister David Davis was the only Conservative MP to vote against the changes to the Public Order Bill.

He told the Today programme: “There’s too many elements of the law that are too crude and too broadly defined.

“What the government said was that it expects the police to come up with standards of behaviour. That’s very woolly. If we’re going to do that, we should do it properly, do it centrally, with the same level of democracy in the whole country.

“No-one wants a day ruined, but the right to put up placards is virtually absolute in British democracy.”

The 2023 Public Order Act is the government’s second major piece of legislation changing protest laws in under two years.

In 2022 MPs voted to place greater restrictions on public processions if they are too noisy.

The new act goes further:

• Protesters who interfere with “key national infrastructure” including roads and railways can face 12 months in jail.

• Anyone who fixes themselves to an object or building to create an immovable obstacle, a tactic known as “locking on”, could be jailed for six months.

• The law bans protesters from committing acts of “serious disruption” – meaning demonstrations which prevent people going about their day-to-day activities.

• Other new offences include up to three years in jail for tunnelling as part of a protest. Police will also have new powers to search people for super-glues and padlocks.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has requested “further clarity” from Scotland Yard, saying that the right to peaceful protest is an integral part of democracy.

He tweeted: “While it’s vital the police are able to keep us safe, it must be balanced with protecting the right to peaceful protest – an integral part of democracy.

“Londoners will want swift reassurance any lessons to be learned will be learned.”

Shadow housing minister Lisa Nandy said “clearly something has gone wrong” in the handling of Mr Smith’s case, and expressed her support for a review into the matter, which has been requested by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

However, she said Labour was not committing to “wholesale repeal” of the new law, which has been criticised for clamping down on the rights of peaceful protesters.

She told BBC Breakfast: “One of the questions we have is ‘why was it that this group were clearly in contact with the Met, had informed them about their plans, and yet still ended up arrested up and prevented from protesting?’.

“If there is a problem with the legislation, of course we’ll rectify that in government, but we’re not into wholesale repeal of legislation without understanding what the actual problem is first.”

Liberty, which defends civil liberties, said the government “rushed through” the Public Order Act ahead of the Coronation.

“This is the second piece of draconian legislation in just over a year brought in to crack down on our right to protest,” Sam Grant, the organisation’s advocacy director said. “This is not the first time we have seen inappropriate and heavy-handed policing of protest.”

But government minister Neil O’Brien said that “overall in a difficult situation” the police had handled the weekend’s events well.Mr O’Brien said the Public Order Act was “the right legislation”, and was needed to target a “tiny and very selfish minority” who were “out to cause chaos”.”We’ve got the balance right,” he insisted.He said the Met was right to apologise if mistakes were made.

On Monday, Rishi Sunak said he was “grateful to the police” for ensuring that the Coronation weekend had “gone so well, so successfully, and so safely.”

“The police are operationally independent of government, they’ll make these decisions based on what they think is best,” he told broadcasters at a Big Help Out volunteering event in Hertfordshire.

Hundreds of protesters gathered across the UK as the Coronation took place.

Related Topics