Skip to content

The Law and Policy Blog

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

Donate

You can support this independent law and policy commentary by PayPal

Subscribe

Please enter your email address to receive notifications of new stuff by me here and elsewhere.

Pages

  • About
  • Comments Policy

Categories

Recent Posts

  • A close reading of the “AI” fake cases judgment 9th May 2025
  • How the Trump administration’s “shock and awe” approach has resulted in its litigation being shockingly awful 22nd April 2025
  • How the United States constitutional crisis is intensifying 17th April 2025
  • A note about injunctions in the context of the Abrego Garcia case 14th April 2025
  • How Trump is misusing emergency powers in his tariffs policy 10th April 2025
  • How Trump’s tariffs can be a Force Majeure event for some contracts 7th April 2025
  • The significance of the Wisconsin court election result 2nd April 2025
  • “But what if…?” – constitutional commentary in an age of anxiety 31st March 2025
  • A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal 27th March 2025
  • Reckoning the legal and practical significance of the United States deportations case 25th March 2025
  • Making sense of the Trump-Roberts exchange about impeachment 19th March 2025
  • Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case 18th March 2025
  • “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis 17th March 2025
  • Oh Canada 16th March 2025
  • Thinking about a revolution 5th March 2025
  • The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States 25th February 2025
  • The president who believes himself a king 23rd February 2025
  • Making sense of what is happening in the United States 18th February 2025
  • The paradox of the Billionaires saying that Court Orders have no value, for without Court Orders there could not be Billionaires 11th February 2025
  • Why Donald Trump is not really “transactional” but anti-transactional 4th February 2025
  • From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis? 1st February 2025
  • Solving the puzzle of why the case of Prince Harry and Lord Watson against News Group Newspapers came to its sudden end 25th January 2025
  • Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said 21st January 2025
  • A third and final post about the ‘Lettuce before Action’ of Elizabeth Truss 18th January 2025
  • Why the Truss “lettuce before action” is worse than you thought – and it has a worrying implication for free speech 17th January 2025
  • Of Indictments and Impeachments, and of Donald Trump – two similar words for two distinct things 16th January 2025
  • Why did the DoJ prosecution of Trump run out of time? 14th January 2025
  • Spiteful governments and simple contract law, a weak threatening letter, and a warning of a regulatory battle ahead 13th January 2025
  • A close look at Truss’s legal threat to Starmer – a glorious but seemingly hopeless cease-and-desist letter 9th January 2025
  • How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year – how the English state gave up on insisting the new year started on 25 March 1st January 2025
  • Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench 31st December 2024
  • “Twelfth Night Till Candlemas” – the story of a forty-year book-quest and of its remarkable ending 20th December 2024
  • An argument about Assisting Dying – matters of life and death need to be properly regulated by law, and not by official discretion 28th November 2024
  • The illiberalism yet to come: two things not to do, and one thing to do – suggestions on how to avoid mental and emotional exhaustion 18th November 2024
  • New stories for old – making sense of a political-constitutional rupture 14th November 2024
  • The shapes of things to come – some thoughts and speculations on the possibilities of what can happen next 8th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day after an election: capturing a further political-constitutional moment 6th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day of an election – capturing a political-constitutional moment 5th November 2024
  • “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted” – a quick Hallowe’en post about law and lore 31st October 2024
  • Prisons and prisons-of-the-mind – how the biggest barrier to prisons reform is public opinion 28th October 2024
  • A blow against the “alternative remedies” excuse: the UK Supreme Court makes it far harder for regulators to avoid performing their public law duties 22nd October 2024
  • What explains the timing and manner of the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal? 20th October 2024
  • Happy birthday, Supreme Court: the fifteenth anniversary of the United Kingdom’s highest court 1st October 2024
  • Words on the screen – the rise and (relative) fall of text-based social media: why journalists and lawyers on social media may not feel so special again 30th September 2024
  • Political accountability vs policy accountability: how our system of politics and government is geared to avoid or evade accountability for policy 24th September 2024
  • On writing – and not writing – about miscarriages of justice 23rd September 2024
  • Miscarriages of Justice: the Oliver Campbell case 21st September 2024
  • How Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris and Walz is a masterpiece of persuasive prose: a songwriter’s practical lesson in written advocacy 11th September 2024
  • Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney 7th September 2024
  • A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong 30th August 2024
  • Update – what is coming up. 29th August 2024
  • Shamima Begum – and ‘de jure’ vs ‘de facto’ statelessness 21st August 2024
  • Lucy Letby and miscarriages of justice: some words of caution on why we should always be alert to the possibilities of miscarriages of justice 19th August 2024
  • This week’s skirmish between the European Commission and X 17th August 2024
  • What Elon Musk perhaps gets wrong about civil wars being ‘inevitable’ – It is in the nature of civil wars that they are not often predictable 7th August 2024
  • How the criminal justice system deals with a riot 5th August 2024
  • The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)? 26th July 2024
  • And out the other side? The possible return of serious people doing serious things in law and policy 10th July 2024
  • What if a parliamentary candidate did not exist? The latest odd constitutional law question which nobody has really thought of asking before 9th July 2024
  • The task before James Timpson: the significance of this welcome appointment – and two of the obstacles that he needs to overcome 8th July 2024
  • How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases 28th June 2024
  • What you need to know about commercial regulation, in the sports sector and elsewhere – for there is compliance and there is “compliance” 25th June 2024
  • Seven changes for a better constitution? Some interesting proposals from some good people. 24th June 2024
  • The wrong gong 22nd June 2024
  • The public service of an “Enemy of the People” 22nd June 2024
  • Of majorities and “super-majorities” 21st June 2024
  • The strange omission in the Conservative manifesto: why is there no commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act? 12th June 2024
  • The predicted governing party implosion in historical and constitutional context 11th June 2024
  • Donald Trump is convicted – but it is now the judicial system that may need a good defence strategy 1st June 2024
  • The unwelcome weaponisation of police complaints as part of ordinary politics 31st May 2024
  • Thoughts on the calling of a general election – and on whether our constitutional excitements are coming to an end 29th May 2024
  • Another inquiry report, another massive public policy failure revealed 21st May 2024
  • On how regulating the media is hard – if not impossible – and on why reviving the Leveson Inquiry may not be the best basis for seeing what regulations are now needed 4th May 2024
  • Trump’s case – a view from an English legal perspective 24th April 2024
  • Law and lore, and state failure – the quiet collapse of the county court system in England and Wales 22nd April 2024
  • How the civil justice system forced Hugh Grant to settle – and why an alternative to that system is difficult to conceive 17th April 2024
  • Unpacking the remarkable witness statement of Johnny Mercer – a closer look at the extraordinary evidence put before the Afghan war crimes tribunal 25th March 2024
  • The curious incident of the Afghanistan war crimes statutory inquiry being set up 21st March 2024
  • A close look at the Donelan libel settlement: how did a minister make her department feel exposed to expensive legal liability? 8th March 2024
  • A close look at the law and policy of holding a Northern Ireland border poll – and how the law may shape what will be an essentially political decision 10th February 2024
  • How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts 30th January 2024
  • How the next general election in the United Kingdom is now less than a year away 29th January 2024
  • Could the Post Office sue its own former directors and advisers regarding the Horizon scandal? 16th January 2024
  • How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses – and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice 12th January 2024
  • The coming year: how the parameters of the constitution will shape the politics of 2024 1st January 2024
  • The coming constitutional excitements in the United States 31st December 2023
  • What is often left unsaid in complaints about pesky human rights law and pesky human rights lawyers 15th December 2023
  • A role-reversal? – a footnote to yesterday’s post 1st December 2023
  • The three elements of the Rwanda judgment that show how the United Kingdom government is now boxed in 30th November 2023
  • On yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Rwanda policy 16th November 2023
  • The courts have already deflated the Rwanda policy, regardless of the Supreme Court judgment next Wednesday 10th November 2023
  • The extraordinary newspaper column of the Home Secretary – and its implications 9th November 2023
  • Drafts of history – how the Covid Inquiry, like the Leveson Inquiry, is securing evidence for historians that would otherwise be lost 1st November 2023
  • Proportionality is an incomplete legal concept 25th October 2023
  • Commissioner Breton writes a letter: a post in praise of the one-page formal document 11th October 2023
  • “Computer says guilty” – an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly 30th September 2023
  • COMING UP 23rd September 2023
  • Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’? – some footnotes to the article at Prospect on the Birmingham city insolvency 9th September 2023
  • One year on from one thing, sixteen months on from another thing… 8th September 2023
  • What is a section 114 Notice? 7th September 2023
  • Constitutionalism vs constitutionalism – how liberal constitutionalists sometimes misunderstand illiberal constitutionalism 24th August 2023
  • Performative justice and coercion: thinking about coercing convicted defendants to hear their sentences 21st August 2023
  • Of impeachments and indictments – how many of the criminal indictments against Trump are a function of the failure of the impeachment process 15th August 2023
  • A note of caution for those clapping and cheering at the latest indictment of Donald Trump 8th August 2023
  • Witch-hunt (noun) 2nd August 2023

Archives

Masterdon link

Mastodon

How the criminal justice system deals with a riot

5th August 2024

Thirteen years ago, I went along to the south London shopping centre expecting to report on a riot. But there was not a riot.

And so in a splendid exercise of journalism, I filed a piece on a riot not taking place.

The original piece even had a photograph from me of a deserted Bromley town centre – perhaps the least dramatic photograph ever published by any news organ.

*

The paragraphs above are adapted from a post I wrote here in 2021, ten years after the 2011 riots.

That 2011 post, in turn, was prompted by comments from a former CPS prosecutor who thought that the prosecutions had been too harsh for some of those “caught up” in the 2011 riots:

“We have to treat people differently otherwise the system’s unfair and so there were people who I regret even having anything to do with,” said [Nazir] Afzal. “In a different atmosphere, in a different environment, they would have been diverted from the justice system altogether – given conditional discharges, probation, restorative justice, pay compensation. But they got rolled into everything else because we didn’t have resources.

“I mean 2011 was the beginning of austerity. I was tasked immediately on taking the role to reduce my budget by 25%, which meant I had to release lots of prosecutors, administrative staff. The police were doing the same, police stations were closing. So we just had to work with the limited resources we had and that meant that we were forced to apply the same rules to everybody and less discretion than we would have been able to exercise otherwise.”

In 2021 these seemed good points.

*

Now it is 2024, and there are more August riots.

The same former CPS prosecutor quoted above has referred to his 2011 record when commenting on the riots of the weekend just gone:

*

Are the two stances consistent?

Are the regrets stated in 2021 consistent with the pride shown in 2024?

And what is the right way – or the best way – for the criminal justice system to deal with a riot?

*

One way is to treat the various offences in a riot as discrete acts, and to treat them as they would be treated by the criminal justice system if there was no context of wider disorder.

Any criminal damage would be treated as criminal damage would normally be treated, and any arson, ditto.

This would be to treat the rioters as simple criminals, regardless of the wider situation of lawlessness.

There is some merit in that position – and it indicates a justice system unfazed by the supposed “legitimate concerns” of the rioters.

(Of course, if a ‘legitimate concern’ is a view held regardless of the evidence, and which is used to justify any hateful thing done or said, it is neither a ‘concern’ nor ‘legitimate’. It is an excuse, cloaking something very different.)

In essence, this stance is that the rioters are criminals pure and simple, and so should just be treated as criminals, pure and simple.

*

Another approach is that riots change things – that they change everything.

A riot is, on this view, not a collection of separate criminal acts – each of which could be tried and punished separately.

There is instead an additional quality about the many criminal acts in a riot that means that they should be punished far more harshly than if the criminal acts had been committed in isolation.

This was certainly the approach which the criminal justice system adopted in 2011 (and which the former CPS prosecutor suggested in 2021 may have gone too far in some cases).

One lawyer who gave advice to those being prosecuted in 2011 has recalled that grim experience:

*

The rioters in parts of England over the last few days will, it seems, be prosecuted as rioters, and not just as individuals doing particular criminal acts.

Few, if any, sensible people will disagree.

This was not normal, everyday criminality.

Indeed, the disturbances of the last few days seemed worse than riots. They appeared to be more like concerted pogroms. They looked as if they were politically directed and coordinated.

In essence: what happened may have been more akin to terrorism – deliberate political violence.

*

SCHULTZ: It is nothing! Children on their way to school! Mischievous children! Nothing more! I assure you! Schoolchildren. Young—full of mischief. You understand?

~ Cabaret

*

There has in the United Kingdom long been a special branch of criminal law that dealt with terrorism offences.

This is because the criminal law also does not treat terrorists as normal criminals, pure and simple.

There is an additional quality to the criminal acts in question which mean a different legal response is required. Indeed, terrorism law has offences where there is no non-terrorism criminal counterpart.

It may well be that those who directed – or at least incited and encouraged – the 2024 rioters from afar will find that they have brought themselves within the scope of various terrorist offences.

*

There is no one way for the criminal legal system to deal with a riot.

But.

Those who get involved in a riot should not be surprised when the legal system treats their offence as being worse than if the criminal act had been done in another context.

And those who incited and encouraged the rioters should also not be surprised if the legal system treats their involvement as being within the context of terrorism.

For, to conclude, section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is in broad terms:

 

**

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Posted on 5th August 2024Author David Allen GreenCategories Courts and Politics, Courts and the administration of justice, Criminal Law, Public order, Terrorism

27 thoughts on “How the criminal justice system deals with a riot”

  1. Kev Meredith says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:09

    I think that there will be some very hard work done by the police and CPS over the next weeks and months.

    It could be difficult for the CPS to decide what to charge these offenders with. As you say it could be ‘ordinary’ arson, or a terrorist offence.

    Personally, I lean towards terrorism, but nothing in the UK criminal law is straightforward.

    I think that no matter which offence these people are charged with, there will be some substantial jail sentences.

    As a man on the Stockholm omnibus it will be interesting for me to see how it all pans out.

    Reply
  2. David Burrows says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:12

    Many thanks indeed.

    Reply
  3. John Turner says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:19

    Having been caught up in the riot in Birmingham city centre back in 2011 whilst eating out in the Bullring (sic), I had a grandstand view of rioters looting, rather ineffectually, shops on the High Street and New Street.

    I submitted a report of my worm’s eye view of events to Richard Burden who was then the Labour MP for Birmingham Northfield.

    I never had the chance to thank the support and cleaning staff of the Bullring who tried to direct people away from the rioting after their colleagues in security had it seemed fled the scene.

    Is there an offence of stupidity?

    One group, I learnt the following day had broken into a mobile phone shop and stolen the dummy phones on public display whilst leaving the stock for sale safe behind the locked door at the rear of the store.

    Still, I will say for them that they did not riot where they lived, soiling their neighbourhood as is too often the case with rioters to the detriment of the poor souls alongside whom they reside.

    And there was no repeat of the deaths of the two men who died in the fire of their shop in Handsworth in the riots there in the 1980s.

    Reply
  4. Frankie says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:19

    I always thought there was an argument for *weaker* sentences for certain criminal acts carried out during a riot (but not for those instigating the riot).

    The basis for this is that those engaging in looting are in part looting because there’s a form of social proof indicating that the normal rules don’t apply. I suspect that may of those during a riot might not carry out criminal damage or theft outside a riot.

    If they’re (mistakenly) under the impression that normal rules don’t apply, then they’re acting less deviantly than someone who believes the normal rules to fully apply. The latter person is the greater deviant and should therefore be punished more severely.

    If someone breaks a shop window and steals a phone when there is no riot taking place, should they be punished less than someone who incidentally steals a phone (as part of a riot)? Maybe the sentencing already takes this into account for other reasons.

    Reply
    1. Charles says:
      5th August 2024 at 22:21

      If someone commits an offence (such as stealing a phone) for their own gain, then the fact that they have been caught and sentenced is likely to act as a deterrent in future as they have made a substantial loss instead of a gain.

      If they commit an offence for no personal gain (typically because of ideology), then they are much more dangerous as being caught and sentenced may not detract from their satisfaction with the result – indeed they may gain satisfaction by regarding themselves as righteous martyrs for a cause. This means that much more severe sentencing may be needed whereby we must assume that the effect is limited to prevention of future offending by detention alone.

      Equally, of course, for someone caught up in the heat of the moment, their actions may be ones they would come to regret anyway and so would be less likely to re-offend and with a very mild sentence.

      Reply
  5. Matt Flaherty says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:20

    The bit about austerity and lack of resources, doesn’t gel with how the CPS dealt with unfortunate people like Hollie Bentley and others who took to Facebook and made jokes about it in 2011.

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hollie_bentley_prosecution_how_w
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15964268

    Reply
  6. DAVE Middleton says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:36

    A well written article all these rioters and the internet rabble rouser’s must all be treated as terrorists and jailed .

    Reply
  7. David Chandler says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:39

    Your discourse on riots reminds me of when, straight from school I started work in Southend-on-Sea Magistrates’ Court. I was assigned a very small desk in the corner of an office. When I opened a drawer I found a copy of the Riot Act on stiff card with the announcement a magistrate was required to make in the presence of the assembled persons. Probably it had never been used. The wording had to be correct and was:

    “Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.”

    It must have taken a degree of bravery for a magistrate to stand and deliver that. Fortunately the last time it was used in England and Wales was in 1919.

    In 1965, newly qualified and working in Inner London Magistrates’ Courts I was assigned to the Borough Petty Sessional Division which was a lay magistrates’ court just to the south of London Bridge. There I found a similar copy of the announcement and was warned by the Chief Clerk not to move it as it might be needed in an emergency.

    Soon after that the Act was repealed.

    Several years later, and in a rather more senior position, I was approached by a local magistrate who, being aware that an anticipated protest against a new road was going to take place in his vicinity, asked me for the announcement which he intended to deliver to those protesting, he would do it from the middle of a roundabout! I had to inform him the Act was not in force and gently suggest that it would be better that he did not attend and to leave it for the police to decide what to do.

    Reply
    1. Matt Flaherty says:
      5th August 2024 at 11:46

      Fascinating. I wish I could upvote this.

      Reply
  8. John Turner says:
    5th August 2024 at 10:55

    It is a small point, but when Sir Keir, Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2010 was asked by George Osborne to cut the staffing budget of the CPS by 25% in 36 months, Sir Keir chose to do so by 25% in 18 months.

    The 25% cut in staffing budgets within 36 months was made to all central government business units.

    The riots were well over halfway through Sir Keir’s 18 month period of staffing cuts.

    To achieve the cut in 18 months, Sir Keir chose to persuade the brightest, the best and the most effective, and odds on the most costly of his staff to, in the immortal words of Gus Hedges, push forward the parameters of their careers into new and fresh challenges in exciting fields outside of the CPS.

    I imagine you would have to fire a lot of purveyors of light refreshments from trollies or junior administrative staff to come anywhere close to the salary of a single top flight KC.

    Nazar Afzal is right to say the CPS in 2011 was not well placed to take a considered approach to individual prosecutions of rioters, in part, because of his boss.

    As an aside, Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Education offered Osborne a 50% cut in the DfE’s staffing budget, got talked down to the original request of 25% by his new Permanent Secretary, who observed to his SoS that as the Minister was planning to increase the responsibilities of the Department at the centre, it would soon be necessary to take on extra staff …

    Reply
  9. Geoffrey Michael Beresford Hartwell says:
    5th August 2024 at 11:42

    There must be a stage at which the armed forces (probably the Army) will be required to Aid the Civil power. Then, rioting will be a danger to the rioters just as rioters are a danger to the community.

    Reply
    1. John Turner says:
      5th August 2024 at 15:36

      The total establishment of our armed forces, land, sea and air, 183,230 personnel amounts to just 16% of the population of Birmingham, some 1,143,300 men, women and children.

      Our armed forces, supporting our newly (re)established Special Patrol Group, sorry, Tactical Support Unit, correction, standing army of specialist police officers would bring in that context a whole new meaning to the thin line, whatever its colour, tipped with semi-automatic weapons.

      Reply
      1. Lawrence Buckley says:
        6th August 2024 at 09:09

        In 1973 a young man from Galveston, Texas told me a story about a border town that was being disrupted by riotous behaviour. (He didn’t state the cause.) The municipal authorities sent an urgent message appealing for help from the Texas Rangers. In due course a train arrived and down stepped Officer Valdez. The reception committee was horrified.

        “Where are the rest of you? Why is there only one of you?”
        “Y’only got one riot, ain’t you?”

        That evening he was to be seen strolling up and down the empty main street with his shotgun cradled in his arms.

        Note: I do not subscribe to the doctrine that “an armed society is a polite society”. My point is that skilled riot-controllers don’t need to outnumber the rioters.

        More importantly, if riot-control in Britain becomes re-militarised (remember Peterloo), there are despots and lovers of despotism all over the world — and here — who will seize on that as proof that Sir Robert Peel was a wimp, that Western liberal democracy was always a hypocritical veneer and that Sir Keir Starmer’s preferred style of government has no rôle in the real world.

        Reply
  10. Elizabeth Lambert says:
    5th August 2024 at 11:59

    To me the many so called “commentators” on social media are as culpable as those carrying out the rioting. Today we have the sight of an ex Tory Member of Parliament one Brendan Clarke – Smith gleefully posting and I quote ” no need to go abroad, I hear parts of the UK are scorching right now” and of course blaming Labour for the riots. Let us thank God this individual is no longer an MP!!

    Reply
  11. Upozi says:
    5th August 2024 at 12:01

    If you join a demonstration where you know that there is a likelihood that sections of the demonstrators will be destructive or violent, are you committing an act which is morally wrong?

    I remember asking myself this during the 1985 riots. I have a history in shopkeeping and I am not naturally sympathetic to rioters. A visit to the remains of the shop where, I believe, the famous bottle of water was stolen in 2011 did not change that.

    Maybe the twenty odd years spent as a prosecutor that have passed since the 2011 riots have hardened Mr Afzal’s opinions. That would be unsurprising. However, I suspect that his different response is at least partly due to the political motivation behind these riots. The 2011 riots I recall were peculiarly free of political rationale.

    What criticism I have read of the police or the Prime Minister’s statements isn’t that they have condemned the rioting in itself, or promised heavy sentences, but that they have concentrated on criticising the real or assumed political position of those attending whether themselves rioting or not.

    What happened after Cable Street? Accounts from a brief search differ but although there was heavy fighting between the Police and resisters, charges appear to have been quite light. Perhaps people were more inured to street violence – a contemporary newsreel has the commentator cheerfully remarking, “Heads will be broken”.

    Let’s hope that few readers of this blog will require the dire warnings in this post!

    Reply
  12. Richard Cross says:
    5th August 2024 at 17:47

    Perhaps we’ve just found a new use for the Bobby Stockholm? It can hold 500 prisoners and is currently empty. The irony would be off the scale.

    Reply
  13. Sarah Johnson says:
    5th August 2024 at 19:02

    I hope that the rioters are not prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws. That is not because I sympathise with them – they are violent criminals and should be treated as such. However, I am alarmed by the continued mission creep of government power in general and terrorism legislation in particular.

    The criminal law has safeguards built into it for a reason. Sometimes the police make mistakes and arrest innocent people, whether for rioting or other crimes. (Sometimes the police intentionally and abusively arrest innocent people – see the recent Baird report on the GMP for some shocking stories.) A civilised society should have safeguards built in so that those people can defend themselves, and receive basic human rights. Anti-terror legislation that lets the authorities lock up whomever they dislike for fourteen days without charge, probably in an extremely intimidating high-security setup with extra strip-searches for bonus traumatisation, does not pass that test of basic decency.

    No one likes defending alleged rioters. No one wants to be seen as soft on crime. But the end result of that attitude is that the state, even individual police officers, has immense and dangerous freedom to ruin the lives of whomever it pleases. Fourteen days in jail is enough to lose someone their job, see their children taken into care, potentially lose their house. We shouldn’t give the government power to do those things in anything other than the most extreme circumstances.

    And have no doubt, when governments get extra powers, they use them. Remember Gordon Brown solemnly promising that the 2001 Act would only be used against the worst terrorists? Seven years later that Act was used to prosecute Icelandic banks for the crime of being inconveniently bankrupt. No government can be trusted to refrain from using overly-broad powers handed to it by a generous public.

    Right now the government has an opportunity to grab extra power. Emotions are high and the commentariat are falling over themselves competing to see who can sound toughest on rioters. In a few weeks time the country will be sober again, and we will have new and dangerous precedents on the books.

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      5th August 2024 at 21:49

      Many good points there, Sarah, well made.

      Reply
    2. Helen Holdsworth says:
      6th August 2024 at 00:35

      Thank you Sarah for shining daylight on what my emotional instincts initially perceived as the darkest of nights. Thank you for making me think.

      Reply
    3. James Brooks says:
      6th August 2024 at 06:54

      Terrorism charges against the rank and file, cannon-fodder rioters? Surely not, for the reasons expressed above.

      But for the instigators, organisers, influencers, and dog-whistling politicians? Well, that could be a different matter.

      Reply
      1. Richard says:
        6th August 2024 at 17:46

        Do we not have extradition treaties with Cyprus and the USA to help us bring the instigators to justice?

        Reply
    4. Matt Flaherty says:
      6th August 2024 at 08:16

      “No government can be trusted to refrain from using overly-broad powers handed to it by a generous public.”

      Indeed, and we’ve seen it over and over again. A good example is Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which permits suspicionless searches at ports. It was meant to be random but has been used on known travellers. Lord Falconer, the minister behind it, wrote about it after David Miranda was stopped in 2013, saying that this was not the power that the Act granted. He was apparently unaware that it had been used that way for years and approved by the courts.

      Reply
    5. Paul Devine says:
      10th August 2024 at 07:10

      Well said. These points you’ve made resonate with me incredibly. Having grown up in NI during the troubles; you can see the impact of decisions made in haste.

      Reply
  14. Charles says:
    5th August 2024 at 22:23

    “that meant that we were forced to apply the same rules to everybody”

    While I think I see what is really meant by that, it’s a poor way of expressing it as we should be all equal before the law.

    Reply
  15. Alan says:
    6th August 2024 at 03:41

    I agree with Sarah, and would make some additional points. First when is a riot not a riot? Take two rival football supporters. If they have a violent set too is it a riot?
    Secondly all surveys show trust in the police at an all time low. The Battle of Orgreave still burns deep in the memories of Yorkshire. Do we want more of these?
    Does the Labour party have a true mandate to introduce draconian measures? With only around 20% of the available votes (total registered voters plus 8 million unregistered), perhaps not.

    Reply
  16. John William says:
    6th August 2024 at 13:37

    The criminal justice system addresses riots through law enforcement interventions, arrests, and subsequent legal proceedings. Effective management and accountability are crucial to restore order and uphold justice.

    Reply
  17. Pingback: The Quiet Flame: England After October 7 | Max Dunbar

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)?
Next Next post: What Elon Musk perhaps gets wrong about civil wars being ‘inevitable’ – It is in the nature of civil wars that they are not often predictable
Proudly powered by WordPress