Police and Policing and the Public Order Act 1986 - Essay Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxxx Title: Police and Policing Date: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Police and Policing Introduction The Public Order Act 1986 was enacted by parliament in order to provide guidance and empowerment to UK citizens to freely exercise their freedom of speech and protest while at the same time keeping off criminal elements from misusing this right to advance injustice and civil disorder. It sought to strike a balance between the right to demonstrate as well as uphold the rights of those being demonstrated against since they too have a right to lawfully engage in their daily activities. The act also provides strict penalties which include imprisonment or hefty fines upon the deliberate breach of these laws (Home office 2007, p.10; Public Order Act 1986). However, it is worth noting that the act was established as a response to an upsurge in criminal activities targeting public and private properties, hooliganism in sporting events among others. It was a government’s response to bring an end to the criminal activities of the day (Dearlove 2000, p.656). This paper seeks to examine how the police response to upholding the citizen’s right to free speech and protest has changed since the enactment of the Public Order Act 1986. Moreover, this paper will examine whether current methods demonstrate improved consideration for that right. Police response to Public Order Act 1986 Since the enactment of the Public Order Act 1986 the right to freedom of speech has over the years become a national debate with some individuals arguing that the establishment of the act was a ploy to give the police the right to deliberately restrict the freedom of speech and expression whenever they deemed necessary. On the contrary there are those who feel that the act strikes a balance between the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and the involvement of the police to ensure this right is properly exercised and it does not amount to the infringement of other citizens’ rights. For example, a research conducted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights found out that there was a national imbalance in the way the police reacted to citizens who were in protests. From the evidence provided to the committee, the police department was noted to have on several occasions exercised a majority of its powers as a deterrent to the demonstrators rather than to facilitate and ensure that their right to free speech and demonstration was not interfered with. The police where perceived to be actually against the protesters instead of providing them with enough security to exercise this right. This kind of attitude from the police was noted to promote conflict between the police and the demonstrators rather than uphold cooperation and therefore degenerating the incidences to a confrontational level. The Journalists who presented their grievances to the commission also felt that the police restricted the performance of their duties. The police on the other hand argued that as far as large protests and marches where concerned, they only imposed restrictions before these events take place mainly as a precautionary measure (Joint Commission on Human Rights 2009, p.3). By carefully examining the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights we are able to discover that the police have generally responded well to upholding the right of freedom of speech. The police department has not been blamed for completely overstepping its mandate to uphold the rule of law but rather in imposing restrictions in cases they perceive might degenerate to unlawful incidents and seriously interfering with the normal activities of the community. In addition, the police department has been acknowledged for holding meetings with the organisers of such activities in order to hold discussions and find a common ground on various issues (Home office 2009, p.62). The involvement of the police in protecting the right to freedom of speech can therefore be seen to be proactive rather than reactive as perceived by the general public. In my view, the police have done a commendable job to continuously engage the public on matters relating to their right to freedom of speech compared to the period before the enactment of Public Order Act 1986. The unfriendly approach has been replaced with a more proactive and consultative engagement to educating and protecting the citizens rights. This can be evidently seen by a decline in the level of confrontation with the general public during marches and protests. However, it is possible that the police still view those individuals who are exercising their right to freedom of speech by protesting as possible law breakers. This is evident from the numerous complaints presented to the commission. Therefore, the police have a long way to go as far as ensuring this kind of perception from the public is completely eradicated. The government and the key number of the protestors who were involved in the G2O protests also credited the police for the manner in which they facilitated the demonstrations although the protests claimed the life of one individual. The police had been faced with an uphill task of controlling the protestors and were forced to work round the clock to ensure all the rights of those involved were respected and upheld. The protests all had little impact on the daily activities of those who were not participating (Home affairs committee 2009, p.3). Another good example for a positive involvement of the police in protecting the right to freedom of speech was witnessed during the recent homecoming parade for military officers from the 2nd battalion Royal Anglian Regiment. They were faced with the hard task on safeguarding the rights of both the soldiers and the protestors. The protestors were faced with a counter protest and the officers present ensure d neither of the two groups infringed on the rights of the other. This situation was a challenge to the police but they exhibited professionalism in handling the matter. However, the complicated nature of the incident helps to bring out the challenges the police face in managing the different interpretations of the law as presented in the Public Order Act 1986 (Joint Commission on Human Rights 2009, p.3). It is clearly evident that most of the police actions have been geared towards supporting and uphold the right of UK citizens to exercise their freedom to speech and expression. Even when presented with a complicated incident similar to the one mentioned above they tireless work to ensure that neither of the parties feel their rights have been infringed in any way. Therefore the police deserve commendable recognition for their positive efforts towards upholding the freedom of speech as provided for in the constitution. The challenge to the police is to engage members of the public and other stakeholders to ensure this right is understood and respected by all. They should view their duties as not just limited to enforcing the law but also educating the public on such matters to ensure their full compliance. However, there are a number of instances where the police have been perceived to have suppressed certain citizen’s right to freedom of free speech. These cases provide evidence of police high handedness in enforcing certain sections of the law in the pretext that the affected individuals are either infringing the rights of other individuals or they are causing distress or alarm to the public. The section below is dedicated to examining how the police knowingly or unknowingly suppress the individual’s rights to free speech and expression. The requirement by law that individuals inform the police of their intention to stage a protest should also be amended in order to avoid remove the feeling of suppression with regard to ones right to protest and exercise their right to free speech. The proposal has also been supported by several parliamentarians and the civil society since it will open up space for those who want exercise their right(Joint Commission on Human Rights 2010, p.7). The Christian Institute in their Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights presented a number of cases which provide an insight on how the police department overstepped its mandate and infringing on the right of others to freedom of speech. One particular case is that of a street preacher Mr. Dale Mcalpine who was arrested after a telling one of the Police Community Support Officer that he considered Homosexuality as a sin. It was interesting to note that Mr.Mcalpine was arrested after responding to a question asked by the Police Community Support Officer and not during his public preaching where he could be overheard from a distance. The police here are seen to have overstepped their mandated and used this section of the law to suppress Mr. Dale Mcalpine right to freedom of speech. Mr.Mcalpine had only expressed his opinion which had been sort by the PCSO and therefore did not in any way distress or infringe on the rights of others (The Christian Institute 2010, p.3). In addition the law also states that it is not an offence for an individual to criticize or discuss matters relating to sexual orientation since admonishing an individual to refrain from a certain sexual orientation did not amount to instigating hatred on the individual (Parliamentary committee on Human Rights 2009, p.54). Another case study presented by The Christian Institute was that of a 16 year old protester who was arrested for holding a placard that was written “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”. Although the police in their defence claimed that they upheld her right of freedom of speech but were also keen to protect the community’s right not to be distressed. This case brings many questions to mind. For example, what criteria did the police use to determine at what point an individual has overstepped their right to freedom of speech. The girl could have argued that she did not in any way force anybody into subscribing her opinion but was only expressing them with a view of educating the public. In addition, the police seem to have acted based on presumption since no body in the community presented any complains to the police that they felt distressed as a result of the girl’s expression of her right to freedom of speech (Bernan 2008, p.116). It is also worth noting that there was widespread criticism over the police action and as a result the case was eventually dropped (The Christian Institute 2010, p.2; Joint Commission on Human Rights 2009, p.161). From the above case study we are able to deduce that the police had an overzealous approach to suppressing the girl’s right to freedom of speech and expression. From The Christian Institute (which has 28,000 supporters in UK) argument is it evident that the police on a number of occasions have been perceived to suppress the right of certain individuals to freely express themselves without reasonable evidence that their actions were in any way interfering with the rights of others and / or were purposely causing them harm (The Christian Institute 2010, p.1). In addition the police need to be careful in their interpretation of certain words which they quickly label as offensive, alarming or distressing to other members of the public. At what point does the police draw the line between words which they consider to be offensive and those that are generally acceptable. It is evident from the above mentioned incident that an individual could be innocently exercising their right to freedom of speech and eventually ends up being pounced on by the very individuals who are supposed to protect and safeguard his right to free speech. The police should also consider educating the general public on such matters in order to avoid confrontation and a negative response to their efforts to safeguard the rule of law. If the public feels that their right to freedom of speech is being suppressed by the police the consequences of such a perception could easily weigh down on their relationship with the public. This would in the long run affect their efforts to identify a crime and prevent it since they rely on the same public to provide them with this kind of information. There has been a raging debate among parliamentarians and the civil society on what the issue of deleting the word ‘Insulting’ from the section 5 of the public Order act 1986 since this has been the main cause of police infringement on the right to freedom of speech ( Strickland 2010). Several human rights activists have been in Favour of the deletion of the word from the constitution while others opt for the elimination of the word through the Freedom bill. However, some of the parliamentarians seem to take a more cautious approach by arguing that such an action would leave the minority such as the disabled in a vulnerable position. However, there arguments seems to not to hold a lot of weight since they have been unable to provide concrete evidence for their position. It is worth noting that it is the interpretation of the word ‘insult’ by the police that has resulted to the suppression of the freedom to free speech and expression. Since there is no consensus on the appropriate interpretation of this word it is only fair enough to have it excluded from the law. The inclusion of this word has only serves to provide the police with a strong point to restrict individuals from exercising their right to freedom of speech. According to a research by the Home Office it was discovered that the majority of the cases (70%) that the police intervened under section 5 were merely undertaken without any member of the public complaining to the police that those particular incidents had in anyway caused them alarm or distress. Here the police acted on their own accord (The Christian Institute 2010, p.2). Another example where police are perceived to have overstepped their mandate and suppressed citizens’ right to free speech is the case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang. The couple was arrested after having a religious debate with a Muslim guest at their hotel. The judge in his ruling admonished the police that they should have handled the case different since they did not find the evidence provided by both the police and the complainant as incriminating. There was also a public outcry over the case. Although the case eventually was thrown out by the judge the effects of the case ended up affecting the couple’s hotel business negatively. Here the police action ended up causing distress to the couple since the couple’s source of livelihood that is hotel business they had worked hard to establish was adverse affected (The Christian Institute 2010, p.2). Kyle Little case is another example of police high handedness in their application of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Kyle was arrested by the police after being warned for use of offensive language which had directed towards two Labradors. The police proceeded to prosecute him even after the animal owner declined to have him prosecuted (The Christian Institute 2010, p.3). The police took the correct action to warn Kyle Little about his actions but to proceed to take him to court over the matter was an overstretched use of their mandate since the owner of the animals did not feel obliged to have him prosecuted. The police should have basically set Kyle free after giving him the warning since he may have acted in ignorance. Such an action may send the wrong signal to the public since it may cause fear and panic. This in itself is a form of distress which the police may be deemed to cause as result of overstretching their mandate to enforce the law. The police should apply the law in a manner that is seen to be both fair and friendly to all parties concerned so that all individuals can appreciate and support their efforts in maintaining law and order. Conclusion In conclusion, the police have done a commendable job in upholding the citizens’ rights to free speech since the enactment of the Public Order Act 1986. Although there have been faced with numerous challenges as far as the interpretation of certain sections of the act, they have demonstrated a willingness and zeal to striking a balance between the interpretation of the different sections of the law without infringing on an individual’s right to free speech (Turpin and Tomkins 2007, p.817). However, their record has not remained untainted but has been tarnished by a number of incidents where police officers have overstepped their mandate. The police should diligently engage the public and other stakeholders in finding a common ground where the interpretation of the low is not seen to infringe of the rights of individuals as provided for by the law. Although, the police hold the right to call off a protest, they should do so after having informed and explained the reasons of the cancellation to the organisers. The reason should not be forced down their throat but should communicate effectively to make sure they understand the purpose for this cancellation. In addition, the police also need to first exhaust other friendly means of dealing with overzealous demonstrators before resorting to making any arrests (Crown Execution Service 2010). Individuals tend to resist confrontation without prior information. In addition, the police should not be perceived to be misusing the authority given to them by law to maintain public order as a disguise for infringing citizens’ right to freedom of speech. Bibliography Bernan, 2008, Draft constitution renewal bill: vol 2 evidence: House of Lords paper 166-11, Stationary Office, UK. Dearlove, J. & Saunders, P., 2000, Introduction to British politics, Blackwell, New York. Freedom Bill, Great Britain. Great Britain, 1986, Public Order Act 1986. Chapter 64, The stationery office, London. Home Office, 2007, The governance of Britain: managing protest around Parliament, Crown, UK. Home office, 2009, Protecting the public: supporting the police to succeed, Stationary office, London. House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights 2010. Legislative scrutiny constitutional reform and governance bill: video recordings bill House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009, Demonstrating Respect for Rights?: A Human Rights Approach to Policing, Vol 2, Stationary office, London. House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009, Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest, Information & publishing solutions, Great Britain. House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009, Legislative scrutiny: Coroners and Justice Bill, Great Britain. House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2009, Policy of the G2O protests, Stationary office, London. The Christian Institute, 2010, Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights: Turpin, C. & Tomkins. A., 2007, British government and the constitution: text and materials. Cambridge university press, New York. Read More