Police ‘tip balance in favour of protesters’ rather than disrupted locals and businesses, watchdog says

But campaigners accuse government of ‘staggering assault on right to protest’ as parliament considers controversial new laws

‘Reset needed,’ according to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (PA)

The handling of demonstrations by British police has been “tipping the balance too readily in favour of protesters”, according to a report commissioned by Priti Patel.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMICFRS) was tasked with reviewing how officers used existing powers and whether the law should be changed.

The watchdog concluded that a “reset of the scales” was needed, calling for new laws and suggesting that police officers were wrong to take a knee at Black Lives Matter protests.

It released its findings two days after controversial new powers to restrict protests, including those by just one person, were announced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Campaign groups accused authorities of mounting a “staggering assault on our right to protest”, highlighting that liberties had already been curtailed by coronavirus laws.

But HMICFRS said its recommendations were compliant with human rights laws, and were politically “neutral”.

Matt Parr, HM Inspector of Constabulary, told a press conference that police were not always balancing the rights of protesters with those who suffer disruption as a result.

“These rights are not absolute rights,” he said. “That raises important questions for police and wider society about how much disruption is tolerable.

“There should be a fair balance struck between the rights of protesters and the rights of individuals and businesses in the wider community.”

The report was commissioned in response to large protests by supporters of Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter.

Shortly after the work was commissioned, the home secretary accused members of both movements of “hooliganism and thuggery”.

“It is not acceptable for mobs to tear down statues and cause criminal damage across our streets,” Ms Patel said in October.

Asked whether HMICFRS risked appearing biased against left-wing groups, despite previous violence and disruption at right-wing protests, Mr Parr said its findings were “deliberately neutral” and applied to all protests.

“There was public concern throughout 2020, not exclusively about the left wing, and the home secretary is entirely within her rights to commission us to look at it,” he added.

“From that point forward, we are entirely independent of government and we make independent judgments. We have simply gone where the evidence has taken us on this.”

The report called on police to improve the way they assess the impact of protests, increase the quality of intelligence and “support forces to use live facial recognition technology in a way that improves police efficiency and effectiveness”.

Addressing whether officers were right to “take the knee” in an expression of solidarity with Black Lives Matter protests, HMICFRS said “police leaders should think very carefully before they take any actions which may be interpreted as showing support for, or aversion towards, any protest or its stated aims; it will rarely be appropriate”.

It recommended bringing powers to control public assemblies in line with those for moving processions, and lowering the bar for breaking the Public Order Act to “failing to comply with a condition imposed”, rather than “knowingly failing”.

The watchdog also backed the creation of a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”.

The changes are being implemented through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which was introduced in parliament on Tuesday.

The bill would also create new powers to restrict one-person protests, which HMICFRS said it was previously unaware of and had not been asked to consider.

Mr Parr said the watchdog was not saying police should be more heavy-handed against protesters, but that “there are conditions that police can put on protest and a way they can manage them in preparation where a reset would be appropriate”.

The Liberty human rights group called the new bill and HMICFRS proposals a “staggering assault on our right to protest, as well as an attack on other fundamental rights”.

Its olicy and campaigns officer Emmanuelle Andrews said: “We should all be able to stand up for what we believe in, and protest is a key way we make our voices heard and fight for a fairer society.

“However, these principles are under attack and the ability for us to hold the powerful to account is now under immediate threat.”

She said the coronavirus pandemic had already handed “enormous powers” that reduced protest to the government, adding: “Police already have extensive powers to restrict protests, and frequently go beyond them, even though it is their duty to facilitate the exercise of this right.”

The Big Brother Watch campaign group criticised the HMICFRS recommendation over facial recognition, saying the technology was inaccurate and breached human rights in some cases.

“This would put our approach to protests in the ranks of Russia and China,” said director Silkie Carlo.

“The right to protest is plainly under attack from this government, police and, sadly, some of the institutions that are supposed to hold them to account.”

Extinction Rebellion said it “does not plan on stopping anytime soon”.

“It’s not new police powers that we need but some compassionate leadership from the government,” said representative Alanna Byrne.

“Priti Patel can try and make the UK a protest-free zone, but it’s clear that the government is not going to do the right thing without protestors holding them to account.”