There has been much debate about the so-called ‘noisy protest’ provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but it is worth looking at what the Bill actually says. It does not prohibit protests that are simply noisy, or allow police officers to prevent or limit a protest just because they think it is too loud.
It does allow the police to restrict a procession if the noise generated ‘may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession’ or if the noise ‘may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness’ or may cause such persons ‘to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress’. In other words, these provisions can only be used where the rights of others are being adversely affected. Situations like this often involve a balancing of rights and, important (and preserved in this legislation) though the right to protest is, it cannot be right that it can be exercised without reference to the rights of others who may be affected by it. In terms of the effect on others, irritation or annoyance is not sufficient. Even the term ‘serious unease’ is qualified by the requirement that such serious unease would be felt by a person of reasonable firmness and does not therefore encompass those with particular sensitivities or prejudices. In terms of the need for police officers to exercise judgment in these matters, this is not unique. Some public order laws include very similar language, based on which police officers make frequent operational judgments. It is of course not relevant to the use of these additional proposed powers what view the relevant police officer takes of the protest or if they agree with it, it is solely the effect on others which would trigger their potential use.
For those reasons I cannot agree with the interpretation some have placed on these provisions, or share their opposition to them.
