Tories’ new anti-protest laws ‘create an authoritarian police state’

The police, crime, sentencing and courts bill has come under scrutiny in the wake of the handling of the Sarah Everard vigils.

More than 150 organizations have warned ministers that a new law handing police tougher powers to crack down on protesters would be “an attack on some of the most fundamental rights of citizens”.

A joint statement by Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter today claimed: “This appears to be a blatant attempt to create an authoritarian police state, where the voices of ordinary people, particularly those most marginalized and disadvantaged, are silenced by state-sanctioned penalties.”

6 reasons to be worried about Tory crackdown:

• Clause 55 will let police impose start and finish times and maximum noise levels on a wider range of protests in England and Wales.
• Clause 59 will axe the ‘common law’ definition of public nuisance and replace it with a clear set of words agreed by Parliament. Offenders will get up to a year’s jail from magistrates or 10 years from a crown court judge if found guilty.
• Clause 57 will hugely expand the “controlled area” outside Parliament, where tents and unauthorized loudspeakers or megaphones are banned. Those who disobey can be fined up to £5,000.
• Clause 60 will give senior police the power to impose any conditions they see fit on a one-person protest to avoid “disruption or impact”. One-man-bands who knowingly refuse to comply with police orders can be fined up to £2,500. Someone who “incites” the one-person protest not to comply could be jailed for up to 51 weeks.
• Clause 46 will raise the maximum penalty for criminal damage to a memorial or statue from three months to 10 years.
• Clause 60 will create a new offence of “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”. If they refuse, they can be fined up to £2,500 or jailed for up to three months.

Labour has said it will oppose the bill, with the shadow justice minister, David Lammy, saying it was “no time to be rushing through poorly thought-out measures to impose disproportionate controls on free expression”.