Tag: police

The Chilling Impact of UK Policing on Civil Liberties


Update on current issues in the UK

September 2025

Much of our coverage of human rights issues on this site features overseas countries and indeed there is a lot to write about. The latest edition of the Amnesty magazine (Autumn 2025, Issue 226) has a feature on the rise and arguably increasing number of authoritarian leaders for whom human rights are things to be suppressed by all means possible. The list includes Javier Milei of Argentina; Narendra Modi with his draconian anti-terrorism law used to target activists, journalists, students, protesters and others.

Vladimir Putin needs no introduction nor does Xi Jinping who enacts repressive laws, persecutes Uyghurs and the repression of Tibetan culture continue unabated. Others include Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi who is busy wooing anyone who’ll listen while engaged in suppression of any dissent and who has executed record numbers in 2024. Victor Orban who has increasingly targeted civil society while remaining a member of the EU. Netanyahu in Israel is well known and presiding over genocide in Gaza and intensifying violence and apartheid in the West Bank. He bans foreign journalists and the UN from entering Gaza.

‘Chilling effect’

But there are worries in the UK with more and more laws being passed to inhibit protests and empower the police to arrest or interdict such protests and those attending them. Palestine Action has been much in the news and the organisation was declared a terrorist group by the previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. A high court judge has ruled that the co-founder of PA can bring an unprecedented legal challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision. Mr Justice Chamberlain said the proscription order against the group risked ‘considerable harm to the public interest’ because of the ‘chilling effect’ on legitimate political speech.

At the recent rally on 6th September in London organised by Defend our Juries, police arrested nearly 900 people many of whom were carrying Palestine Action placards. A 3 day hearing starts in November and it will be the first time an appeal is allowed against a ‘terrorist’ organisation. The court has given permission for both Amnesty and Liberty to intervene in the hearing.

Human Rights Watch: World Report

HRW’s World Report amplifies the above comments in its section on the UK. Laws criminalising protest undermine democratic rights they note. They remain on the statute book and the Labour government shows no sign of repealing them. The 2023 Public Order Act, the 2020 Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Act also remain on the statute book both of which increased police powers and act to limit free speech.

There are comments about the increasing disparity in wealth in the UK. On immigration and asylum it notes the failure to provide safe routes and how politicians and some media outlets have contributed to a hostile environment towards ethnic and racial minorities.

Policing

Since 2002, the police have had an increasing presence in schools under the Safer Schools Partnership programme. Liberty has found no evidence that this police presence has made them safer and that there is no reliable evidence that such presence reduces crime or violence. One problem is that police are mandated to report crime in schools even it may be inappropriate in the circumstances. Lack of funding for mental health leads police to step into roles unrelated to policing it notes One of their recommendations is that police a more supportive roles in PSHE activities. See the report for more details.

It cannot be argued that the UK is anywhere near the situation in some of the countries briefly mentioned above. Journalists are not murdered as in Russia, opposition politicians are not imprisoned for no reason which happens in Saudi, there are no second class citizens as in Israel. However, the slow drip of legislation and increasing police powers, widening use of facial recognition even in peaceful protests, a legal system largely the preserve of the very rich and elements of our media all too happy to laud clampdowns and arrests of those they don’t like are matters of increasing concern. We shall continue to highlight these issues in our posts.

Previous posts:

Why not become a subscriber?

0

Illegal police surveillance of journalists


Tribunal finds that police illegally spied on journalists

December 2024

Viewers of news programmes last evening (17 December) will have noticed journalists and David Davies MP standing outside the Royal Courts of Justice holding Amnesty signs saying ‘Journalism is not a Crime’. This was as a result of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruling that both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police had acted unlawfully by spying on journalists during the Troubles*.

Journalism is an important part of our society and is sometimes the only means we have of getting some glimpse of the truth. Police actions in spying on journalists is to be deprecated. Two journalists, Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey produced a film called No Stone Unturned which documented the alleged collusion between the Police and the suspected murderers in the massacre which took place in Loughinisland in 1994. Six Catholic men were shot dead in the UVF attack, which was later found to involve collusion. In making enquiries to the PSNI this set off the surveillance operation in a bid to find the sources the journalists had relied on. It seemed relatively easy for the police at the time to acquire these orders.

‘Landmark case for press freedom‘ – Amnesty

Responding to a judgment from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) which today ruled that the police acted unlawfully and breached the human rights of Northern Ireland journalists, Amnesty declared it a ‘landmark case for press freedom’.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is the only British court with statutory powers to investigate secret police surveillance, ruled that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Metropolitan Police Service unlawfully spied on the journalists in a bid to uncover their sources.

At the conclusion of a five-year investigation, the Tribunal found that the PSNI had repeatedly acted unlawfully, in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The unlawful behaviour reached all the way to the top of the PSNI with the then Chief Constable Sir George Hamilton being found by the Tribunal to have acted unlawfully by failing to “consider whether there was an overriding public interest justifying an interference with the integrity of a journalistic source” when he authorised a spying operation against an official at the Office of the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland.

There are increasing concerns about police and security service surveillance, which is becoming easier with new technology. Software can be placed on phones to intercept messages, whether the phone is switched on or not.

Sources: Amnesty International; Irish Times; Irish News; The Guardian

*The ‘Troubles’ were an ethno-nationalist conflict in Northern Ireland that lasted for about 30 years from the late 1960s to 1998. Also known internationally as the Northern Ireland conflict, it began in the late 1960s and is usually deemed to have ended with the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Although the Troubles mostly took place in Northern Ireland, at times violence spilled over into parts of the Republic of Ireland, England, and mainland Europe. (Wikipedia)

Recent posts:

0

Scrap anti-protest laws


The government should scrap the anti-protest laws it has passed

February 2024

This call was made in the current edition of the Amnesty magazine and refers to various laws the government has passed to curb or prevent protests taking place. The first is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the second is the Public Order Act 2023. They were introduced mainly as a result of climate change protestors who carried out a range of protests and campaigns which were not popular with the government, the right wing media or some of the public. 

Protests, violent or otherwise, have been a feature of Britain’s political life for centuries. Indeed, the Conservative politician Ian Gilmour, who served in Mrs Thatcher’s cabinet, wrote a book Riot, Risings and Revolution: Governance and Violence in Eighteenth Century England, (Pimlico, 1993) which described the considerable number of such things which were a regular feature of life at the time. So the activities of Extinction Rebellion are neither new nor especially harmful in the light of history. It’s possible that the two Home Secretaries who pushed through this legislation were both daughters of immigrants who may not have been aware of this history. 

It is also ironic that both politicians, who are female, owe their right to be an MP – or to vote at all – to the actions of suffragists and latterly, the suffragettes who campaigned violently for those rights It is also ironic that the suffragists campaigned peacefully for around four decades and made little progress – arguably none. There were many campaigns which have led to positive change viz: ending Apartheid in South Africa, the Chartist movement, ending slavery and protests leading to the Great Reform Act. It is true to say that many of the rights we enjoy today, owe their existence to a protest of some kind to achieve them. 

It is also a sad fact of life that peaceful protests usually get ignored. There are many marches, some quite large involving many thousands, which get no coverage. But once violence erupts, it becomes news. Governments do not like protest and see them as some kind of threat to their right to govern. But protest is about the only way ordinary people to make their concerns heard or to promote change.

Both acts should be scrapped.  

The Salisbury group was established 50 years ago

0

UN Rapporteur ‘seriously concerned’ at crackdown in UK


UN Rapporteur on environment matters expressed ‘alarm’ ‘distress’ and ‘serious concern’ at the crackdown on environmental activists in UK

January 2024

Between 10 – 12 January 2024, David Forst, made his first visit to the United Kingdom since he was elected as UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention in June 2022.

On 23 January he issued a statement in the light of the extremely worrying information he received in the course of meetings regarding the increasingly severe crackdowns on environmental defenders in the United Kingdom, including in relation to the exercise of the right to peaceful protest.

“These developments are a matter of concern for any member of the public in the UK who may wish to take action for the climate or environmental protection. The right to peaceful protest is a basic human right. It is also an essential part of a healthy democracy. Protests, which aim to express dissent and to draw attention to a particular issue, are by their nature disruptive. The fact that they cause disruption or involve civil disobedience do not mean they are not peaceful. As the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear, States have a duty to facilitate the right to protest, and private entities and broader society may be expected to accept some level of disruption as a result of the exercise of this right“.

Peaceful protests

During his visit, however, he learned that, in the UK, peaceful protesters are being prosecuted and convicted under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, for the criminal offence of “public nuisance”, which is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. He was also informed that the Public Order Act 2023 is being used to further criminalize peaceful protest. In December 2023, a peaceful climate protester who took part for approximately 30 minutes in a slow march on a public road was sentenced to six months imprisonment under the 2023 law. That case is currently on appeal, but it is important to highlight that, prior to these legislative developments, it had been almost unheard of since the 1930s for members of the public to be imprisoned for peaceful protest in the UK.

He also expressed alarm to learn that, in some recent cases, presiding judges have forbidden environmental defenders from explaining to the jury their motivation for participating in a given protest or from mentioning climate change at all. It is very difficult to understand what could justify denying the jury the opportunity to hear the reason for the defendant’s action, and how a jury could reach a properly informed decision without hearing it, in particular at the time of environmental defenders’ peaceful but ever more urgent calls for the government to take pressing action for the climate.

He also received highly concerning information regarding the harsh bail conditions being imposed on peaceful environmental defenders while awaiting their criminal trial. These have included prohibitions on engaging in any protest, from having contact with others involved in their environmental movement or from going to particular areas. Some environmental defenders have also been required to wear electronic ankle tags, some including a 10pm – 7am curfew, and others, GPS tracking. Under the current timeframes of the criminal justice system, environmental defenders may be on bail for up to 2 years from the date of arrest to their eventual criminal trial. 

Such severe bail conditions have significant impacts on the environmental defenders’ personal lives and mental health and he seriously questioned the necessity and proportionality of such conditions for persons engaging in peaceful protest. In addition to the new criminal offences, he was deeply troubled at the use of civil injunctions to ban protest in certain areas, including on public roadways. Anyone who breaches these injunctions is liable for up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Even persons who have been named on one of these injunctions without first 2 being informed about it – which, to date, has largely been the case – can be held liable for the legal costs incurred to obtain the injunction and face an unlimited fine and imprisonment for breaching it. The fact that a significant number of environmental defenders are currently facing both a criminal trial and civil injunction proceedings for their involvement in a climate protest on a UK public road or motorway, and hence are being punished twice for the same action, is also a matter of grave concern to him.

Media derision

He was also distressed to see how environmental defenders are derided by some of the mainstream UK media and in the political sphere. By deriding environmental defenders, the media and political figures put them at risk of threats, abuse and even physical attacks from unscrupulous persons who rely on the toxic discourse to justify their own aggression. The toxic discourse may also be used by the State as justification for adopting increasingly severe and draconian measures against environmental defenders. In the course of his visit, he witnessed first hand that this is precisely what is taking place in the UK right now. This has a significant chilling effect on civil society and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.

As a final note, during his visit, UK environmental defenders told him that, despite the personal risks they face, they will continue to protest for urgent and effective action to address climate change. For them, the threat of climate change and its devastating impacts are far too serious and significant not to continue raising their voice, even when faced with imprisonment. We are in the midst of a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Environmental defenders are acting for the benefit of us all. It is therefore imperative that we ensure that they are protected.

A spokesperson for the UK Home Office, the government department that tackles policing and other elements of national security, said that “while decisions on custodial sentences are a matter for the independent judiciary, the Public Order Act brings in new criminal offences and proper penalties for selfish, guerrilla protest tactics.”

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The UN special rapporteur offers a damning indictment of the repressive crackdown climate activists in the UK face for exercising their right to peacefully protest.”

“The UK Government seems more intent on creating a climate of fear than tackling the climate crisis.“

The full report can be accessed here: Aarhus_SR_Env_Defenders_statement_following_visit_to_UK_10-12_Jan_2024.pdf (unece.org)

Sources: CNN; Guardian; UN, Mail on Line. [There does not seem to be a report on this in the Daily Telegraph]. All accessed 25 January 2024

0

Threat to our rights


Government bills represent a threat to our rights to protest and to hold the government to account

We are becoming accustomed to authoritarian regimes restricting the rights of their citizens by a variety of means. These include restrictions on the right of assembly, weakening judicial control and either ignoring or neutering human rights laws. The UK government has introduced three bills which seek to do similar things and this post is to highlight the dangers for everyone in the country.

Our human rights are our personal freedoms. You can’t see or touch them, but they should always have your back. Think of them as your invisible armour. If you don’t find yourself thinking about your rights much, that’s a good sign that they’re there for you and doing what they should be: making you feel safe, accepted and free to enjoy your life with dignity and without fear. But what if someone quietly took your armour away, bit by bit, and you didn’t realise until it was too late? How would you protect yourself?  

That’s what’s happening right now, right under our noses – and the UK government doesn’t want you to know about it. As we speak, they are trying to introduce new laws and make changes to existing ones that will result in less freedom for ordinary people, more power for people in authority, and even greater inequality in our society. These changes will also make it harder for you to stand up for yourself if your human rights are being abused. And on top of that, in many cases it will be society’s most vulnerable people who are the worst hit by the changes. Our freedoms are under attack from all angles: this is a raid on our rights.  

If you’re still not sure what all this means in practice, you’re not alone. That’s exactly what people in power want, as a lack of public understanding makes it easier for them to sneak through changes that will negatively affect people’s lives without them realising (until it’s too late). We’re here to shout about the changes and make sure as many people as possible are aware of them, as we need your help to fight them.  

 
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill   

The right to protest is fundamental to a free and fair society.  In its current form, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for England and Wales, would be an enormous and unprecedented extension of policing powers which would put too much power in the hands of the state. It would give both police and Government ministers the powers to ban, limit or impose any condition on peaceful protests – on the grounds that they might be ‘noisy’ or cause ‘annoyance.’  
 
The Bill not only targets the organisers of any protest, but also anyone who takes part in them on the basis that they “ought to have been aware” of any restrictions, conditions or prohibitions placed on any given event, risking criminalising large numbers of people for activities that otherwise would be perfectly lawful.  

Our rights, enshrined in international and domestic law, can only be infringed in very limited circumstances considered to be both proportionate and necessary.  Measures in this Bill are neither. Police already have wide ranging powers to manage public order and prevent public assemblies from causing serious harm. This Bill sets out to crackdown on explicitly nonviolent dissent.  

This will likely disproportionately impact people who are in a minority and increase the racism and discrimination which is experienced by many.  The thresholds in the Bill that will be applied to any policing action are vague, undefined and open to such wide ranging and discretionary interpretation that they will give rise to even more inconsistent approaches to how protests and demonstrations will be managed in future.  

Communities who already face wide ranging racist and discriminatory over policing will likely be at even greater risk. Already, research by the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights shows that 85 % of Black people in the UK are not confident that they would be treated the same as a white person by the police.  

This is worsened by other parts of the Bill, including greater police powers to enhance stop & search and to collect and share information, all of which are likely to entrench institutional racism within the criminal justice system. These structural inequalities need to be dismantled not re-built.  
 
We are concerned by restrictions on the right to roam which would seriously affect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities who could see their entire way of life criminalised. These proposals risk further criminalising homelessness or protesters using nonviolent occupations, peace camps or sit-ins to challenge injustice.  

This Bill covers a huge number of things, many of which have been heavily criticised by different sectors and requires a serious rethink. In many ways, it is so problematic that it would better be that it was dropped. Any welcome provisions in it could be delivered through different legislation. If the Bill proceeds, we are calling, alongside over 250 civil society organisations and 700 legal academics and counting, for the removal of Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill that relate to protest and the right to roam. We are similarly calling for the removal of measures relating to enhanced stop and search powers and data gathering and sharing requirements, which if enacted would likely increase structural racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system. At an absolute minimum, the relevant parts of the Bill (Part 2 Chapter 1, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 10 Chapter 1) must be substantially amended. 
 
Disappointingly the Bill has passed through the Commons, but this is not the end. In autumn the Lords will now have the opportunity to amend the Bill, before it returns to the Commons. 

This Bill affects England and Wales directly, but people from Scotland and Northern Ireland will travel to London to protest.  As Amnesty activists we are concerned about restrictions to freedom of expression and rights to assembly wherever they happen in Bogota, Bangalore, Belfast or Bristol. 

The Salisbury group will be writing to our MP, Mr John Glen, to express our concerns about this and other proposed pieces of legislation.

3

College of Policing


College of Policing in fresh controversy

Updated : 23 November

The College of Policing is involved in fresh controversy today concerning their training of police in countries that regularly use torture.  In the summer it was revealed that they had training large numbers of Saudi and Bahraini police and that this training has aided them to arrest protestors who were then tortured.

On the BBC’s World at One radio programme there was an interview with a woman who’s husband had been arrested and disappeared for a month.  She alleges he was “subjected to the worst kind of physical and psychological abuse”, they beat him brutally and concentrated these beatings on his genitals.

Reprieve has published a report detailing the allegations against Mohammed Ramadan.  It now appears that the release of the information and documents about the College of Police’s activities was not meant to have happened and was as a result of ‘human error.’  From now on, details of the College’s activities will not be disclosed.

The Foreign Office maintains that the best way to improve human rights in these countries is by engagement and that we should not criticize from the sidelines.  Crispin Blunt MP, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said:

Human rights assessments are quite bleak [in these countries] and it is going to reinforce the arguments of those who are against engagement

Quit so.  So the worse it is, the better the justification for our engagement.  This might be fine of course if by ‘engagement’, there was some kind of visible or tangible improvement.  But it seems our involvement makes matters worse not better.  As Maya Foa, director of the death penalty team at Reprieve comments on their website:

It is scandalous that British police are training Saudi Arabian and Bahraini officers in techniques which they privately admit could lead to people being arrested, tortured and sentenced to death

Earlier in the year, the Home Affairs select committee strongly criticised the College of Policing and the secretive way they had gone about this work.  The Chief executive had apparently been told by the Foreign and Colonial Office not to answer questions for reasons of commercial confidentiality and security.

The argument that closer integration with unpleasant regimes yields positive benefits could have some merit.  If by trading, cultural contacts, training schemes, and other contacts – social or economic – good behaviour (however defined)  rubs off onto the regime then that can be claimed as a benefit.

But the suspicion with the College of Policing and other commercial activities in the region, is that it is profit and money driven with little more than lip-service given to ethics and human rights.  It is all of a piece with our arms sales to the Saudis which are causing such devastation in Yemen.

One would have expected that the College of Policing of all organisations, to have ethics and human rights at the top of their agenda.  The police have some ground to make up following a number of scandals like Hillsborough.  Helping repressive regimes to be more efficiently repressive hardly fits the bill.  Making it secret is a tacit admission that they have something to hide.

Sources: Sputnik; The Guardian; Reprieve; World at One (BBC)

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook – salisburyai

 

 

2

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑