Jailing Protestors

 

Particularly concerning are Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (text from Netpol, my emphases):

 

The government has now given specific details about these new orders: if you are convicted of two “protest-related offences” in five years, the courts can apply for a Serious Disruption Prevention Order.

 

They are designed to stop someone from committing any further “protest-related offences” or breaching an injunction as part of a protest, helping anyone else to do so, and to prevent you from “carrying out activities related to a protest that results in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales”.

 

However, under these alarmingly draconian new Orders, you do not have to have been found guilty of any “protest-related offences” – the courts can place you under an Order if they reasonably believe that on two or more occasions in a five year period, you have “carried out activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation” or helped someone else to do so. (Remember that the legislation allows Home Secretaries to define and re-define ad hoc, what amounts to “serious disruption”).

 

Anyone who has organised with a direct action group or participated in a large-scale protest could be at risk. Modelled on the draconian Knife Crime Prevention Orders that systematically criminalise Black youth, Serious Disruption Prevention Orders can:

• require people to report to police stations,

• ban them from attending protests,

• ban them from going to particular places (such as the site of a demonstration or march) at particular times,

• stop them from associating with particular people (such as a ban on being with friends involved in the same protest movement),

• ban them from having particular items (such as superglue or D-locks), and

• ban them from “using the internet to facilitate or encourage persons to commit protest-related offences” – a provision so broad that it could criminalise sharing a protest announcement on Facebook or Twitter.

 

Anyone given an Order would face regular reporting to the police to make it easier for them to keep track of your address and movements.

 

Serious Disruption Prevention Orders could vary in length from a week to up to two years, although the police and courts can renew them indefinitely. If you’re found to be in breach of any part of the order you could face a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks.

 

If you are placed under an Order, it is also a criminal offence if you fail to notify the police of any changes to your address or personal information, or if you give incorrect information to the police.

 

The effect of these Orders, if introduced, could be to ban political organisers from attending, organising, or promoting protests seen as “disruptive to two or more individuals or to an organisation” for two years or more, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

 

However, the state may decide you are guilty of a crime if you break the rules of the Order in any way – or even fail to notify the police that you’re staying somewhere else.

 

My final thought:

 

For protestors, it becomes ever more important to stop the police getting hold of your personal details—name, face (e.g. through social media or FRT), your relationships, interests and beliefs—to build a picture of your life. Many in protest movements seem quite casual about this at present, or even insist on being completely “open” about their identities. Sadly, that now seems inadvisable to say the least.

 

Chris Coppock