header-logo header-logo

Police Bill passes Commons

02 March 2022
Issue: 7969 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
The House of Commons voted to reject the Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill this week, in a hotly debated late night vote

The House of Commons voted to reject the Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill this week, in a hotly debated late night vote.

MPs voted 288 to 238 in favour of reinstating a clause that would allow the police to close down peaceful protests deemed too noisy, and 298 votes to 236 in favour of a ban on protests outside Parliament.

MPs asked what was meant by ‘too noisy’? The policing minister Kit Malthouse MP did not address this but said the provision would be used for ‘rare and exceptional circumstances’.

Opposing the noise restriction, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle said: ‘Democracy is noisy, that’s the point… the minister is a snowflake, and the Cabinet cry into their port at night because they can’t handle robust democracy.’

Some MPs drew comparisons with curbs on protests in Russia. Referring to the proposed curbs on noise, Conservative MP Jesse Norman said: ‘No case has been made, no serious case has been made, that this is a real and genuine problem.’ However, Steve Baker MP was the only Conservative to rebel, and the government won comfortably.

The amendments will now return to the Lords.

Human rights group Liberty responded, in a Tweet, the proposals reinserted by the government were ‘a clear attack on the fundamental right to protest’ and pledged to continue to fight the measures.

In January, the Lords rejected several amendments to the Bill, including the creation of offences of ‘locking on’, obstructing major transport works and interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure. These clauses, which were aimed at tactics used by climate protest group Extinction Rebellion, could not be resurrected by MPs because they were not included when the Bill went to the Lords and so would require a new Bill.

Issue: 7969 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll