Main

January 6, 2011

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Part 3 - the end to Brian Haw's peace camp Temporary Autonomous Zone in Parliament Square ?

The previous Labour government reneged on their promise to repeal the extremely controversial Serious Organised crime and Police Act 2005 sections 132 to 138, which created the current Designated Area around Parliament Square. What was the first clause of the Constitutional reform and Governance Bill, was magically removed when that Bill mutated into one which dealt mostly with Pensions and Expenses for Members of Parliament, passed, without any democratic debate, during the "wash up" period when the General Election had been called.

The new Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government is having another attempt at it:

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill has now had its Second Reading in the House of Commons.

As is typical of Home Office Bills, the most controversial sections are buried deep within the text, on the assumption that our lazy professional politicians will not bother to scrunise it, and that they will simply go through "on the nod".

Note the the retrospective legislation clauses which attempt to cover Brian Haw's existing protest peace camp, which they failed to make illegal under the SOCPA 2005 law, because he had been protesting before that legislation took effect.

Note also the banning of "sleeping equipment" or "tents" etc.

It is unclear if this ban will apply to gypsy Caravans or other Camper Vans or other Motor Vehicles which are certainly not "tents" or other "structures" or "sleeping equipment"

Part 3

Parliament Square Garden and surrounding area

Repeal of SOCPA 2005 provisions



139 Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament: repeal of SOCPA 2005 provisions

(1) Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (which regulate demonstrations and use of loudspeakers in the vicinity of Parliament) are repealed.

(2) The public assemblies in relation to which section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 applies, as a consequence of the repeal of section 132(6) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, include public assemblies which started, or were being organised, before this section comes into force.

Controls on activities in Parliament Square Garden and adjoining pavements

140 Controlled area of Parliament Square

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the "controlled area of Parliament Square" means the area of land that is comprised in--

(a) the central garden of Parliament Square, and
(b) the footways that immediately adjoin the central garden of Parliament Square.

(2) In subsection (1)--

"the central garden of Parliament Square" means the site in Parliament Square on which the Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square (Improvements) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Act as "the new central garden";

"footway" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act).

Parliament Square Gardens comes under the authority of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. The "footways" or pavements around the edge oof the central garden / park come under the authority of Westminster Council.

A Court ruled that there was no "obstruction of the pavement" as it was as deemed to be wide enough and the number of pedestrians passing by are very few (especially after the zebra crossings or pelican crossings into the central section of Parliament Square were removed a few years ago.

Brian Haw's peace camp has established a Temporary Autonomous Zone peace protest encampment ,straddling the two legal authorities.

141 Prohibited activities in controlled area of Parliament Square

(1) A constable or authorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing
that a person is doing, or is about to do, a prohibited activity may direct the
person

(a) to cease doing that activity, or
(b) (as the case may be) not to start doing that activity.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, a "prohibited activity" is any of the following

(a) operating any amplified noise equipment in the controlled area of
Parliament Square;
(b) erecting or keeping erected in the controlled area of Parliament Square

(i) any tent, or
(ii) any other structure that is designed, or adapted, (solely or
mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in a place for any period;

(c) using any tent or other such structure in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of sleeping or staying in that area;
(d) placing or keeping in place in the controlled area of Parliament Square any sleeping equipment with a view to its use (whether or not by the person placing it or keeping it in place) for the purpose of sleeping overnight in that area;
(e) using any sleeping equipment in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of sleeping overnight in that area.

What is the exact definition of "overnight" ?

(3) But an activity is not to be treated as a "prohibited activity" within subsection (2) if it is done

(a) for police, fire and rescue authority or ambulance purposes,
(b) by or on behalf of a relevant authority, or
(c) by a person so far as authorised under section 145 to do it (authorisation for operation of amplified noise equipment).

(4) In subsection (2)(a) "amplified noise equipment" means any device that is designed or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limited to)

(a) loudspeakers, and
(b) loudhailers.

(5) In subsection (3)(b) "relevant authority" means any of the following

(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department,
(b) the Greater London Authority, or
(c) Westminster City Council.

(6) It is immaterial for the purposes of a prohibited activity

(a) in the case of an activity within subsection (2)(b) or (c) of keeping a tent or similar structure erected or using a tent or similar structure, whether the tent or structure was first erected before or after the coming into force of this section;
(b) in the case of an activity within subsection (2)(d) or (e) of keeping in place any sleeping equipment or using any such equipment, whether the sleeping equipment was first placed before or after the coming into force of this section.

Retrospective legislation aimed specifically at Brian Haw.

(7) In this section "sleeping equipment" means any sleeping bag, mattress or other similar item designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purpose of facilitating sleeping in a place.

(8) A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

"level 5 on the standard scale" is a £5,000 fine ! which must surely be very disproportionate.

142 Directions under section 141: further provision

(1) A direction requiring a person to cease doing a prohibited activity may include a direction that the person does not start doing that activity again after having ceased it.

(2) A direction requiring a person not to start doing a prohibited activity continues in force until

(a) the end of such period beginning with the day on which the direction is given as may be specified by the constable or authorised officer giving the direction, or

(b) if no such period is specified, the end of the period of 90 days beginning
with the day on which the direction is given.

(3) A period specified under subsection (2)(a) may not be longer than 90 days.

(4) A direction may be given to a person to cease operating, or not to start operating, any amplified noise equipment only if it appears to the constable or authorised officer giving the direction that the following condition is met.

(5) The condition is that the person is operating, or is about to operate, the equipment in such a manner as to produce sound that other persons in or in the vicinity of the controlled area of Parliament Square can hear or are likely to be able to hear.

(6) A direction

(a) may be given orally,
(b) may be given to any person individually or to two or more persons together, and
(c) may be withdrawn or varied by the person who gave it.

(7) In this section "amplified noise equipment" has the meaning given by section 141(4);
"direction" means a direction given under section 141(1).

143 Power to seize property

(1) A constable or authorised officer may seize and retain a prohibited item that is on any land in the controlled area of Parliament Square if it appears to that constable or officer that the item is being, or has been, used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 141.

(2) A constable may seize and retain a prohibited item that is on any land outside of the controlled area of Parliament Square if it appears to the constable that the item has been used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 141.

(3) A "prohibited item" is any item of a kind mentioned in section 141(2).

No ! We should not be giving "constables" the power to seize and retain property on their own self authorisation, without a Court Order. On past performance, this power will be abused.

(4) The constable or authorised officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising a power of seizure under subsection (1) or (in the case of a constable) under subsection (2).

(5) An item seized under this section must be returned to the person from whom
it was seized

(a) no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the item was seized, or
(b) if proceedings are commenced against the person for an offence under section 141 before the return of the item under paragraph (a), at the conclusion of those proceedings.

(6) If it is not possible to return an item under subsection (5) because the name or address of the person from whom it was seized is not known

(a) the item may be returned to any other person appearing to have rights in the property who has come forward to claim it, or
(b) if there is no such person, the item may be disposed of or destroyed at any time after the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the item was seized.

(7) Subsections (5)(b) and (6) do not apply if a court makes an order under section
144(1)(a) for the forfeiture of the item.

(8) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to an item that is "on" any land include references to an item that is in the possession of a person who is on any such land.

144 Power of court on conviction

(1) The court may do either or both of the following on the conviction of a person
("P") of an offence under section 141

(a) make an order providing for the forfeiture of any item of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) of that section that was used in the commission of the offence;
(b) make such other order as the court considers appropriate for the purpose of preventing P from engaging in any prohibited activity in the controlled area of Parliament Square.

(2) An order under subsection (1)(b) may (in particular) require P not to enter the controlled area of Parliament Square for such period as may be specified in the order.

(3) Power of the court to make an order under this section is in addition to the court's power to impose a fine under section 141(8).

145 Authorisation for operation of amplified noise equipment

(1) The responsible authority for any land in the controlled area of Parliament Square may authorise a person in accordance with this section to operate on that land any amplified noise equipment (as defined by section 141(4)).

(2) An application for authorisation must be made to the responsible authority by or on behalf of the person (or persons) seeking the authorisation.

(3) The responsible authority may

(a) determine the form in which, and the manner in which, an application is to be made;
(b) specify the information to be supplied in connection with an application;
(c) require a fee to be paid for determining an application.

(4) If an application is duly made to a responsible authority, the authority must

(a) determine the application, and
(b) give notice in writing to the applicant of the authority's decision within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the authority receives the application.

(5) The notice must specify

(a) the person (or persons) authorised (whether by name or description),
(b) the kind of amplified noise equipment to which the authorisation
applies,
(c) the period to which the authorisation applies, and
(d) any conditions to which the authorisation is subject.

(6) The responsible authority may at any time

(a) withdraw an authorisation given to a person under this section, or
(b) vary any condition to which an authorisation is subject.

(7) Variation under subsection (6)(b) includes

(a) imposing a new condition,
(b) removing an existing condition, or
(c) altering any period to which a condition applies.

(8) The exercise of a power under subsection (6) to withdraw an authorisation or to vary a condition is effected by the responsible authority giving notice in writing to the applicant.

146 Meaning of "authorised officer" and "responsible authority"

(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Part.

(2) "Authorised officer", in relation to any land in the controlled area of Parliament
Square, means

(a) an employee of the responsible authority for that land who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purposes of this Part, and
(b) any other person who, under arrangements made with the responsible authority (whether by that or any other person), is so authorised for the purposes of this Part.

(3) "Responsible authority", in relation to any land in the controlled area of Parliament Square, means

(a) the Greater London Authority, for any land comprised in the central garden of Parliament Square (as defined by section 140(2)), and
(b) Westminster City Council, for any other land.

147 Effect of Part on byelaws

(1) In section 385 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (byelaws), after

subsection (6) insert

"(6A) Byelaws under this section may not be made as respects Parliament Square Garden for the purpose of prohibiting a particular activity so far as that activity is a prohibited activity for the purposes of Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (see section 141(2) of that Act).".

(2) Any byelaw made under section 385 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 before the date on which section 141 above comes into force ceases to have effect on that date so far as the byelaw makes provision prohibiting, as respects the controlled area of Parliament Square, a particular activity that is a prohibited activity for the purposes of this Part.

(3) Nothing in this Part restricts the making of any byelaw under section 235(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (power of councils to make byelaws) for the purpose of prohibiting, as respects the controlled area of Parliament Square, a particular activity except so far as the activity is a prohibited activity for the purposes of this Part.

The next part 4 of this Bill was probably sneaked in as part of the Parliament Square stuff abiove, but it will apply throughout the rest of England and Wales:

Part 4

Miscellaneous

Seizure powers under byelaws

148 Enforcement of byelaws: powers of seizure etc

(1) After section 237 of the Local Government Act 1972 (offences against byelaws)
insert

"237ZA Section 235 byelaws: powers of seizure etc
A byelaw made under section 235 may include provision for or in connection with

(a) the seizure and retention of any property in connection with any contravention of the byelaw, and
(b) the forfeiture of any such property on a person's conviction of an offence of contravention of the byelaw.".

(2) In section 385 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (byelaws), in subsection (4)(b) for "a trading byelaw" substitute "any byelaw under this section" Controlled area of Parliament Square

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the "controlled area of Parliament Square" means
the area of land that is comprised in

(a) the central garden of Parliament Square, and
(b) the footways that immediately adjoin the central garden of Parliament Square.

(2)
In subsection (1)--

"the central garden of Parliament Square" means the site in Parliament Square on which the Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square (Improvements) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Act as "the new central garden"; "footway" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act).

At least the huge , excessive Designated Area will be repealed, so perhaps fewer people will be stopped for carrying the Independent newspaper down Whitehall, or will be arrested and convicted for reading out the the names of British soldiers killed abroad recently, by the Cenotaph War memorial.

November 28, 2010

House of Lords Question / mini debate on Parliament Square 8th November 2010

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has spent six months dragging its heels over repealing the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 sections 132 to 138 Designated Area around Parliament Square.

They have not even used the existing legislation to vastly reduce the area covered by the Order which sets out the current extent of the Designated Area.

The House of Lords has had a small debate , following a Question:

HL Deb, 8 November 2010, c4

Parliament Square -- Question
House of Lords debates, 8 November 2010, 2:45 pm

Baroness Trumpington (Conservative)

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any agency is responsible for the removal of those occupying the pavement in Parliament Square.

[...]

Baroness Neville-Jones (Minister of State (Security), Home Office; Conservative)

My Lords, Westminster City Council is responsible for the pavements under its control and the Metropolitan Police are responsible for policing crime and managing protests in the designated area around Parliament. The Government share the public's concern about the current state of Parliament Square and are working with all the relevant agencies to protect this place of national importance. The Government intend to introduce legislation shortly

[...]

Lord Dubs (Labour)

My Lords, the Minister referred to working with several authorities. Will she explain who owns the middle of Parliament Square?

Baroness Neville-Jones (Minister of State (Security), Home Office; Conservative)

My Lords, as many noble Lords may know, the problem is that no single authority owns Parliament Square. Westminster Council has responsibility for the pavements on the southern and western sides of the square and the GLA has responsibility for the pavements on the northern and eastern sides and for the grass. This means that we have to have partnership between these various agencies, and the Government have been involved in fostering that in order to bring about improvement in the square.

[...]

July 10, 2010

High Court Judgment against the self styled "Democracy Village" and others in Parliament Square Gardens

Protests and demonstrations in Parliament Square, especially long term ones, are complicated by the legal ownership of the land.

Unlike the roads and pavements, which come under Westminster Council, the central grass in Parliament Square Gardens is owned by the Greater London Authority , under the control of the Mayor of London, the Conservative Boris Johnson.

The recent eviction of the self styled "Democracy Village" squatters encampment, resulted from a High Court case, brought by the GLA.

The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors (Rev 1) [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010)


N.B. this is not the first time that the GLA has acted against encampments set up in Parliament Square Gardens, the previous Labour Mayor Of London Ken Livingstone, had contractors erect a fence around Parliament Square Gardens, from August to October 2007, in scenes reminiscent of the early days of the Berlin Wall.

See: Mayor of London Ken Livingstone further restricts public access to Parliament Square with an ugly and potentially dangerous fence

The Judgment shows the complexities of the law, but neatly summarises some of the history of protests in Parliament Square.

This case involved several, separate, groups of people, who cannot be held responsible for each others actions.

At what point do the rights of one group of protestors start to impinge or on, or deny, the identical rights of other groups or individuals, who wish to use the same prime protest location in Parliament Square ?

October 18, 2007

The GLA Fence around Parliament Square has been removed, for now

This Indymedia report has some photos of the GLA Fence being removed by contractors, as various people camping on the grass were evicted yesterday.

The Greater London Authority, under the orders of the Labour Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, controls the central grass area of Parliament Square (technically Parliament Square Gardens) through Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square byelaws, which do not extend to the pavement area where Brian Haw's protest is located.

Ken Livingstone could give permission for the evicted campers (general peace activists and some Burmese demonstrators), but he has refused to do so over the years, whilst pretending to support many of the causes of the various protesters.

Will the Fence magically re-appear, or will a more permanent one be erected ? How much has this potential danger to the public cost the taxpayers of London ?

Some of the byelaws under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 section 385 which apply to Parliament Square Gardens:

Continue reading "The GLA Fence around Parliament Square has been removed, for now" »

October 14, 2007

Last week's StWC march, Sessional Orders and the Fence

Apologies for not blogging about last week's Stop the War Coalition march / demonstration (see this BBC report) This was noteworthy for the threatened abuse of the Sessional Order by the Metropolitan Police, which is supposed to ensure the safe passage and attendance of MPs and Peers when Parliament is back from its extended holidays.

The law under which these Sessional Orders are issued (almost the very first piece of business which gets rubber stamped without any debate or amendment at the start of each new Session of Parliament) dates back to 1839 and the Chartist riots in the early 19th Century.

Given the underground tunnels from Westminster Tube Station, from Portcullis House and from the underground Car Parks, ensuring that MPs and Peers can get in to the Palace of Westminster is much easier than in 1839, and previous large marches or demonstrations which have filled Parliament Square and the surrounding streets have had no effect on the ability of Parliament to continue functioning as normal.

It would be an evil day if demonstrators or rioters could manipulate the outcome of a vote in Parliament, by physically preventing their political opponents from attending a Vote or debate.

In the end, the Police and the Government seem to have relented, and not abused this legacy law to disrupt the latest StWC march, possibly because of the low turnout for a rather extremist call for immediate withdrawal of US and British troops from Iraq, regardless of the civil war which would result from such an action.

There did seem to be one person at least who was arrested in Parliament Square itself, but not, apparently under SOCPA.

Our previously expressed fears about the stupidity of Ken Livingstone's temporary fence around Parliament Square Gardens was illustrated by the fact that SWtC demonstrators partially dismantled it.

If there had been any sort of violent counter-demonstration, then it seems inevitable that the sections of this fence would have been used as weapons or missiles against the Police or other demonstrators.

If there had been a larger crowd of people in Parliament Square, the fence could have been a Health and Safety hazard, simply due to crowd pressure, and its inevitable obstruction of first aid personnel.

August 22, 2007

PledgeBank Pledge to sign against the fence around Parliament Square Gardens

Richard Pope has set up a PledgeBank Pledge:

"I will email Ken Livingstone asking for the fence around Parliament Square to be removed but only if 10 other londoners will do the same.

Sign up at:

http://www.pledgebank.com/parliamentfencee

or by sending an SMS text message (normal rate,m UK only)) with the message: pledge parliamentfence to 60022

N.B. Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's contact details are:

Continue reading "PledgeBank Pledge to sign against the fence around Parliament Square Gardens" »

August 21, 2007

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone further restricts public access to Parliament Square with an ugly and potentially dangerous fence

On Friday 17th August 2007, the hypocritical Labour politician the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone had the central part of Parliament Square i.e. Parliament Square Gardens fenced off with ugly chain link "security" fencing. - see this BBC report

What this has to do with the eviction of some "unsightly" illegal campers, an operation which also managed to harass the "legitimate" campers who are part of Brian Haw's 6 year protest camp, which is on the Pavement outside of the Greater London Authority controlled Parliament Square Gardens, is a mystery.

Surely the presence of this temporary fencing is itself not only an eyesore, but will also be danger to public health and safety, the next time that a large crowd gathers in Parliament Square for a peaceful (authorised) demonstration or other event ?

If there are any crowd surges, then either members of the Public or of the Police are going to get crushed against the fence and possibly injured.

Why provide ammunition for any violent troublemakers who want to throw things at the Police or at rival demonstrators ? This has happened on numerous occasions in the past with exactly this sort of fencing.

Why does this ugly fencing encroach on and cause an obstruction on the Pavement on the Northern i.e. Whitehall side of the central part of Parliament Square ? Surely this Pavement is under the jurisdiction of Westminster Council and only the grassy area is owned by the Greater London Authority ?

See this extract from BBC Jam cam image (the traffic CCTV spy camera often, but not always shows this view of Parliament Square):

GLA_Fence_in_Parliamen_Square_300.jpg

How much money has this potentially dangerous eyesore Fence, which is no barrier to illegal campers, cost the taxpayers of London ?