Clause 59 and the criminalising of 'obstruction'
It’s not changes to trespass that could threaten hunt saboteurs
The government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill made headline news following the aggressive policing of a vigil for murdered woman Sarah Everard. In particular, campaigners raised concerns over sections in the bill detailing new police powers over protest. And some of those could have an impact on hunt saboteurs.
Criminal nuisance
The bill, published on 9th March 2021, sets out measures that the government describes as protecting “citizens and communities… to ensure that they can get on with their daily lives peacefully and without unnecessary interference”. And in clause 59, the bill lays out an offence for “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”. Clause 59(1)(b) says:
A person commits an offence if… the person’s act or omission… obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large
It then goes on to add that this counts whether it is an act, or the result of omitting an act, where the consequence results in the actions laid out in 59(1)(b). In other words, a person can be charged with an offence for obstructing the “enjoyment of a right” practised by the public at large or by a section of the public. And a person convicted of this sentence could face a 10-year prison sentence.
This isn’t an entirely new law. As the government itself points out, clause 59 would “abolish... and replace” an existing common law offence. However, it has nonetheless raised concerns from different human and civil rights advocates.
Intentionally vague
While the practical application of this clause is unknown, its implications have stoked concern across multiple areas of social struggle. Trade union Unite highlighted it as a particular reason for opposing the government’s bill:
Friends of the Earth described its wording as “vague” and therefore left to “interpretation by police”. And human rights organisation Liberty said the new clause would strike at the “very heart of protest”, pointing out that a protest defence would only be valid once in court:
Legal professionals also highlighted problems with the clause’s wording. Human rights QC Jessica Simor described the implications of the wording as problematic:
Meanwhile, rights barrister Adam Wagner said the clause would “hugely expand” the police’s power to shut down protests:
And law columnist David Allen Green described clause 59 as including “worryingly wide drafting”:
More prosecutions may not be the point
What clause 59 means for sabotaging hunts is unclear, as it is for other areas of social struggle. The Citro approached the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA) about it and spokesperson Lee Moon said:
This law is clearly the latest attempt by the Conservative party to clamp down on anyone who disagrees with them.
Its impact on sabbing should be minimal as almost all hunts are blatantly flouting the law every time they leave Kennels so the concept that what we're doing "obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right" won't apply. It is unfortunately likely however that the police, always keen to do the hunts bidding, will use it as one more stick to beat sabs with.
It will also have a significant impact on other already marginalised sections of society who have our full support in opposing the bill.
Moon’s statement echoes an issue raised by Liberty in its briefing on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Paragraph 25 of the briefing expands on the problem of protest as a “reasonable defence”. Because this defence only becomes applicable in a court setting, police are still able to charge protestors for public nuisance. As a result, Liberty says that:
The chilling effect of this proposal is clear, and will prevent people from taking to the streets to make their voices heard.
Police across the country have used the vague wording of legislation to interfere with sab groups. In January 2021, The Citro reported on Staffordshire Police using loose suspect descriptions to stop and search members of Manchester Hunt Sabs. And the writer of this article previously reported on Derbyshire Police pulling sab groups away from hunts based on vague allegations of harassment under the Criminal Justice Act. These are just a few of the cases that make it into the public.
As a result, quoting QC Simor, it doesn’t take “great intelligence nor much imagination” to see how police could use clause 59 to disrupt sabs. It might not result in more prosecutions, but that may not be the point.
Still sabbing
Changes to the law have had hunt saboteurs in the firing line in both recent and more distant history.
In 2017, Section 60aa of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was amended to make it easier for police officers to demand people remove face coverings. The Countryside Alliance celebrated the move, saying it was “delighted” and that it expected “police to make full use” of the amendment to unmask sabs. However, sab groups have reported few if any instances of the widened powers used against them.
On the other hand, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was written with sabs in mind. It introduced the new law of aggravated trespass, which led to arrests and convictions from the outset. The HSA said in 1995 that sabs accounted for “over 90% of the arrests made” under the new law since it had come into effect. And aggravated trespass continues haunting sabs to this day.
Come rain or shine, hunt saboteurs have continued turning up to hunts week in and week out. Past laws that have directly or indirectly targeted sabs have failed to stop people holding hunts to account. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill may give police new ways to carry out the same old tricks, but it’s unlikely to stop sabs from continuing to defend wildlife.
-
Want to support The Citro? Click here to contribute.
-
Headline image via Steve Eason/Flickr