B727 - Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2014

Watch
This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B727 - Public Order (Amendment) Bill 2014, The Rt. Hon. InnerTemple MP

Image

Public Order Amendment Act 2014


BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

(1) In Part V of the Public Order Act 1986 (Miscellaneous and General), after section 39 there shall be entered the following sections:

39A Power to issue a Closure Order
(1) A senior police officer may make a closure order in relation to any relevant business if he reasonably believes that-
(a) there is, or is likely imminently to be, disorder on, or in the vicinity of and related to, the premises and their closure is necessary in the interests of public safety.

(2) A closure order is an order under this section requiring relevant businesses to close and to cease trading for a period not in excess of 24 hours to be specified in the order.

(3) A closure order is an order must-
(a) specify the business and premises to which it relates,
(b) specify the period for which it is in operation

(4) A closure order comes into force at the time a constable gives notice of it to an appropriate person who is connected to any of the activities to which the disorder relates.

(5) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he permits to be open and/or trading, contrary to a Closure Order, a business as named under subsection (3)(a).

(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for no more than six months or to a fine not exceeding £20,000, or both.

(7) In this section-
"senior police officer" means a police officer of, or above, the rank of inspector.

39B Enforcement
(1) A constable may use such force as may be necessary for the purposes of closing premises in compliance with a closure order.

39C Exemption of police from liability for damages
(1) A police officer will not be liable for relevant damages in respect of any act or omission of his in the performance or purported performance of his functions in relation to a closure order or any extension of it.

(2) But subsection (1) does not apply—
(a)if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith, or
(b)so as to prevent an award of damages in respect of an act or omission on the grounds that the act or omission was unlawful as a result of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (incompatibility of act or omission with Convention rights).
2 Commencement, short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Public Order Amendment Act 2014.
(2) This bill shall extend to the British Republic; and
(3) Shall come into force immediately.


Notes
This Bill is designed to allow for police forces to force the closure of a business. It is in response to the disturbances caused during Black Friday - however the provisions contained within the Act will of course be of use to police forces in other situations.

During the Black Friday sales, police forces were disappointed to see that stores had not learned from last year and had failed to properly prepare for this year's event. In some cases, police officers were called to the same store on multiple occasions.

The police service has a responsibility to maintain the peace and to ensure public safety. This means preventing disorder from happening and also being able to respond to members of public in need of assistance. The events of this, and previous Black Fridays have not only led to disorder, but have also occupied police time and prevented officers from being available to attend other calls.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
This has been proposed by myself, by the way.

Forgot to stick that in the 'Field' code thingy.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
This bill shall extend to the British Republic; and
I am unsure of this bill. It is much better than the authoritarian controlling bill that someone else made.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by nebelbon)
I am unsure of this bill. It is much better than the authoritarian controlling bill that someone else made.
What are your main concerns?

As for the enacting words - this was drafted before the end of voting on the amendment. So original enacting words were used.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by InnerTemple)
This has been proposed by myself, by the way.

Forgot to stick that in the 'Field' code thingy.
I can add that in now.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by toronto353)
I can add that in now.
That'd be great! Thanks
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by InnerTemple)
That'd be great! Thanks
Sorted.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
Not sure.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Aye.
0
tehFrance
Badges: 17
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Nay, just nay.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by tehFrance)
Nay, just nay.
How come?

You know that the police already have these powers with respect to licensed premises?
0
Green_Pink
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
Aye in principle. I have a hypothetical concern though. Let's say you have a legal case where a group of protesters called Thugs'R'Us plans a march through Trumpton. This group are notorious for causing violence on their marches and attacking businesses they deem immoral in the name of their anti-capitalist beliefs. The local police force take the decision to close shops on Trumpton High Street using the powers granted to them under this act, in order to protect their customers from encountering this violence. Would the businesses made to close potentially consider a civil lawsuit against Thugs'R'Us for damages due to the fact their criminal violence resulted in a loss of profit? Or, in an alternate case, could a lawsuit be filed against the Police if they deem the closure in question to be frivolous and unwarranted?
0
The Legal Eagle
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Aye!
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Green_Pink)
Aye in principle. I have a hypothetical concern though. Let's say you have a legal case where a group of protesters called Thugs'R'Us plans a march through Trumpton. This group are notorious for causing violence on their marches and attacking businesses they deem immoral in the name of their anti-capitalist beliefs. The local police force take the decision to close shops on Trumpton High Street using the powers granted to them under this act, in order to protect their customers from encountering this violence. Would the businesses made to close potentially consider a civil lawsuit against Thugs'R'Us for damages due to the fact their criminal violence resulted in a loss of profit? Or, in an alternate case, could a lawsuit be filed against the Police if they deem the closure in question to be frivolous and unwarranted?
This measure does not intend to punish shops for the sole actions for others. So, whilst it would hold them responsible for making sure events that they run are safe and orderly, it is not designed to punish (or place measures on them) for events run by other groups.

So I would not expect this measure to be used in the scenario you outlined. Instead, I'd expect to see existing police powers used, namely Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. This section allows a senior police officer to impose conditions on a procession which he believes: "...may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community..."

So, in short, I think that what we would see would be the police focusing on the protesters rather than the shops. However it isn't unusual for shops which are located on the routes of protests to take it upon themselves to close for the day.
0
GoldenEmblem277
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
Abstain. I can see both sides, and I just cannot decide.
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by GoldenEmblem277)
Abstain. I can see both sides, and I just cannot decide.
What's putting you off?
0
GoldenEmblem277
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by InnerTemple)
What's putting you off?
The bill makes sense, and it would be a good idea, but... I am not the best person with words, so if this doesn't make sense I apologise. I just feel that Black Friday can be a good thing. If you consider the Multiplier effect, an increase in buying as a result of Black Friday leads to increased profits, which can be used for innovation, employing more staff or increasing the wages of people. Whilst Black Friday can lead to social discontent, it can also lead to economic growth.

Does that make sense?
0
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by GoldenEmblem277)
The bill makes sense, and it would be a good idea, but... I am not the best person with words, so if this doesn't make sense I apologise. I just feel that Black Friday can be a good thing. If you consider the Multiplier effect, an increase in buying as a result of Black Friday leads to increased profits, which can be used for innovation, employing more staff or increasing the wages of people. Whilst Black Friday can lead to social discontent, it can also lead to economic growth.

Does that make sense?
It does - it was well put.

The first thing I'd like to say is that whilst this bill was inspired by the events of Black Friday, it would not be restricted to just the last Friday in November.

In response to your concern - this bill is not designed to stop Black Friday events or other sales. It is designed to ensure that such events are conducted in a safe manner. As I explained in the notes, there were occasions where police officers had to attend the same shop on more than one occasion. Senior police officers have explained that they did not feel that shops had done enough to ensure a safe Black Friday.

This cannot be right - and we cannot expect that the police have their time taken up responding to situations caused by a failure of a shop to prepare properly.

This kind of power already exists for clubs and pubs. I do not see why it shouldn't apply to shops.

I'd also hope that shops work closely with the police and actually make proper preparations so that the police service do not have to use this power.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
This bill is an overreaction to a situation caused by improper organisation at a store. Further to that the wording is a direct copy of the Licensing Act and City of London Police powers when dealing with premises serving alcohol.

The biggest error in this bill is its ineffectiveness of having the desired outcome. The author highlighted the Black Friday fights in the notes section but only includes a £20,000 fine. The big retailers involved in those fights will make more than £20,000 opening on the day regardless of a police order. There will be no incentive for the big retailers to close a branch. The bill goes further and allows the police to use force in enforcing a closure of a store, this is even more ridiculous and goes against a second point of reasoning, which is, having police officers in shops during Black Friday occupies police time preventing them from attending other calls.

This bill will, in effect, be nothing more than a £20,000 opening fee on retailers in the jurisdiction of an over cautious police officer. A choice will then have to be made between sending police officers to enforce a closure occupying their time, or allowing a retailer to open regardless and hope for a £20,000 fine.

This bill suffers from a case of trying to pass a law for everything you don't like or would like to see different. Sometimes in life things happen which you cannot pass a law to control. I think this is one of those occasions. We do not need an even bigger nanny state, we need less of a nanny state with smaller government.
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
Abstain. I see the argument for it, but I see arguments against it.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (60)
40.82%
Take autumn exams (53)
36.05%
Look for a job (3)
2.04%
Consider an apprenticeship (4)
2.72%
Take a year out (19)
12.93%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (8)
5.44%

Watched Threads

View All