Key Facts

• Amendments 29 and 46 aim to remove 'or is capable of causing' from clause 1.
• Amendment 30 aims to remove 'or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence'.
• The amendments focus on limiting the offence to ensure intent and actual disruption.
• The amendments aim to address concerns about vague definitions and unintended consequences in the Public Order Bill.
• HS2 has spent £126 million on protester removal costs, which could rise to £200 million next year.
• Sarah Jones argues that the current wording of clause 1 conflates different scales of disruption.
• Amendment 46 aims to amend clause 1 of the Public Order Bill.
• The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) supports using a definition of ‘serious disruption to the community’ rather than disrupting two people or an organisation.
• The amendment was voted down with Ayes 6 and Noes 10.
• Amendment would place a limit on the fine for 'locking on' offence to £500.
• Current Bill allows for unlimited fines.
• The amendment is intended to be consistent with similar crimes in Scots law, such as malicious mischief.
• Clause 1 targets those who lock onto objects or people causing serious disruption.
• Maximum penalty for breach is 51 weeks imprisonment, a fine or both.
• Examples include protestors blocking Stansted airport runway and oil tankers.
• Police can arrest under existing powers such as obstruction of the highway.
• Criminal damage can lead to up to 10 years in prison.
• Aggravated trespass can result in three months' imprisonment or a fine of £2,500.
• In September 2020, 80 Extinction Rebellion protesters were arrested for blocking printer works at Broxbourne and Knowsley.
• Five Insulate Britain campaigners received jail terms ranging from 24 to 42 days in September 2021.
• Sarah Jones discusses the historical context of protests at Greenham Common.
• Clause 2 of the Bill is criticized for being vague and potentially criminalizing peaceful protesters.
• The speaker references a 10-year prison sentence for damaging a statue under the proposed legislation.
• Clause 1 of the Public Order Bill is broadly drawn.
• The term 'attach' is undefined and could include actions like linking arms or chaining oneself to railings.
• Liberty notes that the wording might interfere with articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR under the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Kerry McCarthy raises examples of activists and protestors who have faced legal consequences for their actions.
• The MP mentions a case involving an Extinction Rebellion protestor attempting to glue themselves to automatic sliding doors in Bristol City Hall.
• There is concern about the impact on personal assistants required by protesters with disabilities.
• Protesters use tactics like scaffolding poles and adhesive chemicals for disruptive protests.
• Lock ons waste considerable police resources and time, sometimes requiring specialist teams.
• The new clause creates an offence of locking on, carrying a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
• New stop and search powers will allow the police to seize items they believe will be used for locking on.
• Amendments 47, 32, 48, and 33 are proposed to address concerns with Clause 2.
• The amendments aim to narrow the scope of objects that could be criminalised for being used in lock-ons.
• Liberty expressed concerns about a wide range of items potentially being misinterpreted as tools for lock-ons.
• Amendment 32 aims to probe what might be criminalised under the Bill.
• Amendment 33 seeks to ensure prosecution only for those who lock on themselves.
• Amendments 47 and 48 aim to raise the threshold of intent for prosecution.
• The clause creates a criminal offence targeting people who have an object intended for use in lock-on protests.
• Witnesses noted that there is no real evidence that the legislation will work as a deterrent.
• Matt Parr’s report did not call for creating an offence of lock on during a protest.
• The offence of going equipped to commit burglary is well established and used in England, Wales, and Scotland.
• A person can be charged with going equipped if the police have reasonable grounds for suspicion that someone intends to use an object to lock on during a protest.
• Anyone found guilty will face a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine.