Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Last updated

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Act of Parliament
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1, 2022).svg
Long title An Act to make further provision in relation to criminal justice (including employment in the prison service); to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984; and for purposes connected with those purposes.
Citation 1994 c. 33
Introduced by Michael Howard
Territorial extent England & Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland
Dates
Royal assent 3 November 1994
Commencement Multiple dates
Other legislation
Amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It introduced a number of changes to the law, most notably in the restriction and reduction of existing rights, clamping down on unlicensed rave parties, and greater penalties for certain "anti-social" behaviours. The Bill was introduced by Michael Howard, Home Secretary of Prime Minister John Major's Conservative government, and attracted widespread opposition.

Contents

Background

A primary motivation for the act was to curb illegal raves and free parties, especially the traveller festival circuit, which was steadily growing in the early 1990s, culminating in the 1992 Castlemorton Common Festival. [1] Following debates in the House of Commons in its aftermath, [2] Prime Minister John Major alluded to a future clampdown with then Home Secretary Ken Clarke at that year's Conservative Party conference. [3] At the 1993 conference, Michael Howard, who had become Home Secretary, announced details of the new Criminal Justice Bill. [4]

Despite protests and discord against the bill, the opposition Labour Party took an official line to abstain at the third reading, [5] and the Act passed into law on 3 November 1994.

Key measures

Key measures of the act that received public attention included:

Opposition and protest

March against the Criminal Justice Bill, London, July 1994. Criminal Justice Bill March July 1994.jpg
March against the Criminal Justice Bill, London, July 1994.

Whilst the legislation was still under debate, the groups Advance Party and Freedom Network coordinated a campaign of resistance. The group was composed of an alliance of sound systems and civil liberties groups. [12] A movement against the bill grew across "the overlapping squatting, road protest and free party scenes". [2]

Three demonstrations were organised in London throughout 1994. The first of these took place on 1 May (May Day), with an estimated 20,000 people taking part in a march starting at Hyde Park and finishing at Trafalgar Square. [2] The second, on 24 July, followed the same route with numbers estimated between 20,000 and 50,000. [13] [14] The larger turnout was partly attributed to a mobilisation from the Socialist Workers Party and with them placards reading "Kill the Bill", but it also created a degree of "political tension" with the other founding groups. [2] [15]

The third demonstration was called on 9 October, [14] [2] with police estimating 20,000 to 30,000 people attending, while organisers put the figure at over 100,000. The day ended in a riot in Hyde Park that continued into the evening. [16] Accounts stated that, around 5 pm, a confrontation occurred between protesters and police when protesters attempted to bring two sound systems into the park. With such a large number of protesters, the police were overpowered and backed off. Riot and mounted police reinforcements arrived shortly afterwards, and reportedly charged at protesters in an attempt to disperse the estimated 1,500-person crowd. [17]

The civil liberties group Liberty opposed many of the measures proposed by the act at the time, regarding them as "wrong in principle and likely to violate the European Convention on Human Rights". [18]

Criticism

Jon Savage, author of books on youth culture, said of the legislation in Bill form, "It's about politicians making laws on the basis of judging people's lifestyles, and that's no way to make laws". [19] George Monbiot described it as "crude, ill-drafted and repressive". [20] The Act was described by Professor of Cultural Studies Jeremy Gilbert as a "piece of legislation which was "explicitly aimed at suppressing the activities of certain strands of alternative culture", the main targets being squatting, direct action, football fan culture, hunt sabotage and the free party. [21]

The sections which specifically refer to parties or raves were, according to Professor of Sociology Nigel South, "badly defined and drafted" in an atmosphere of moral panic following the Castlemorton Common Festival. [22] [23] The law's attempt to define music in terms of "repetitive beats" was described as "bizarre" by Professor of Law Robert Lee. [1]

Reflecting on the time, the journalist Ally Fogg wrote in The Guardian:

Few listened to our warnings then. After all, we were just a bunch of social outcasts with silly hats and questionable personal hygiene. Beyond some welcome support from Liberty and a handful of progressive trades unions, we stood pretty much alone against the whole political and media establishment. This most draconian and illiberal of Conservative laws could only eventually pass through parliament because a young shadow home secretary shocked almost everyone by deciding not to oppose the bill at the final reading. At the time it was assumed that he decided to let the bill through so as not to look soft on crime, or hand a propaganda victory to the Tories. In doing so, he sacrificed several cornerstones of British civil liberties on the altar of political expediency. His name? Tony Blair. Fifteen years on, there is little pleasure to be gained from saying "we told you so". But the manner in which a law designed to prevent the wholesale mayhem of Castlemorton can now be used to foreclose a birthday party should serve as a stark warning to those currently considering a raft of other illiberal legislation, from the coroners and justice bill to the various ID card proposals. Those who deride the contributors to liberty central when they warn about the incessant creep of police powers, or who scoff at "slippery slope" arguments around civil liberties, should bear in mind that we stood at the top of one of those slopes only 15 short years ago, and we have slid a long way down it since. [24]

Response from musicians

The British IDM band Autechre released the three-track Anti EP in support of the advocacy group Liberty. The EP contained "Flutter", a song composed to contravene the definition of music in the Act as "repetitive beats" by using 65 distinctive drum patterns. The EP bore a warning advising DJs to "have a lawyer and a musicologist present at all times to confirm the non-repetitive nature of the music in the event of police harassment". [25]

The fifth mix on the Internal version of Orbital's Are We Here? EP was titled "Criminal Justice Bill?". It consisted of approximately four minutes of silence. In their 1995 track Sad But New, Orbital incorporated samples from John Major's 1992 conference speech. [26]

"Their Law", a song by electronic dance acts the Prodigy and Pop Will Eat Itself, was written as a direct response to the bill. [27] A quotation in the booklet of the Prodigy's 1994 album Music for the Jilted Generation read "How can the government stop young people having a good time? Fight this bollocks." The album featured a drawing commissioned by the band from Les Edwards depicting a young male rebel figure protecting a rave from an impending attack of riot police. [28]

In 1993, the band Dreadzone released a single, "Fight the Power", in opposition to the proposed Criminal Justice Bill, featuring samples from Noam Chomsky discussing taking action and "taking control of your lives", advocating political resistance to the proposed bill. [29] The track also features on a 1994 compilation Taking Liberties, released to raise funds to fight the bill. The B-side to Zion Train's 1995 "Dance of Life" single included a track entitled "Resist the Criminal Justice Act".

The Six6 Records compilation album NRB:58 No Repetitive Beats (1994) was released in opposition to the proposed Bill. The album's liner notes said:

For every copy of No Repetitive Beats sold Network will pay a royalty to D.I.Y. / All Systems No! (an advance payment of £3,000 was made before the release of the album). The monies will be used by D.I.Y. / All Systems No! towards the cost of a sound system which will be on hand to replace any sound equipment seized by the police using draconian powers granted to them by the Criminal Justice Bill to stop music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats". The Bill is unjust and tramples across common sense and civil rights. If you want to help throw the CJB out contact the human rights organisation Liberty. Fight for your right to party. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Riot</span> Violent public disturbance against authority, property or people

A riot or mob violence is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property, or people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free party</span> Party "free" from the restrictions of the legal club scene

A free party is a party "free" from the restrictions of the legal club scene, similar to the free festival movement. It typically involves a sound system playing electronic dance music from late at night until the time when the organisers decide to go home. A free party can be composed of just one system or of many and if the party becomes a festival, it becomes a teknival. This typically means that drugs are readily available. The word free in this context is used both to describe the entry fee and the lack of restrictions and law enforcement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sedition</span> Incitement of rebellion

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech or organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liberty (advocacy group)</span> UK advocacy group and membership organisation

Liberty, formerly, and still formally, called the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), is an advocacy group and membership organisation based in the United Kingdom, which challenges unjust laws, protects civil liberties and promotes human rights. It does this through the courts, in Parliament and in the wider community. Liberty also aims to engender a "rights culture" within British society. The NCCL was founded in 1934 by Ronald Kidd and Sylvia Crowther-Smith, motivated by their humanist convictions.

Breach of the peace or disturbing the peace, is a legal term used in constitutional law in English-speaking countries and in a public order sense in the several jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It is a form of disorderly conduct.

<i>Anti EP</i> 1994 EP by Autechre

Anti EP is the second EP by British electronic music duo Autechre, released by Warp on 3 September 1994. It peaked at number 90 on the UK Singles Chart, as well as number 39 on the UK Dance Singles Chart. It is the only explicitly political record Autechre have released.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Castlemorton Common Festival</span> Free festival and rave near Malvern

The Castlemorton Common Festival was a week-long free festival and rave held in the Malvern Hills near Malvern, Worcestershire, England between 22 and 29 May 1992. The media interest and controversy surrounding the festival, and concerns as to the way it was policed, inspired the legislation that would eventually become the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Order Act 1986</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Public Order Act 1986 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that creates a number of public order offences. They replace similar common law offences and parts of the Public Order Act 1936. It implements recommendations of the Law Commission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the bill of rights.

From 2000 to 2015, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focused on terrorism related to Northern Ireland. The timings were influenced by the September 11, 2001 attacks and 7 July London bombings, as well as the politics of the global War on Terrorism, according to the politicians who announce them as their response to a terrorism act.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is an autonomous, non-partisan charitable society that seeks to "promote, defend, sustain, and extend civil liberties and human rights." It works towards achieving this purpose through litigation, lobbying, complaint assistance, events, social media, and publications. Founded in 1962, it is Canada's oldest civil liberties association. It is based in Vancouver and is jointly funded by the Law Foundation of British Columbia and by private citizens through donations and memberships.

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Queensland Council for Civil Liberties</span> Australian civil liberties organisation

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties (QCCL) is a voluntary organisation in Australia concerned with the protection of individual rights and civil liberties. It was founded in 1966 in order "to protect and promote the human rights and freedoms of Queensland citizens." The QCCL is regularly asked by the Government to make submissions to committees, which is how bills are made in Parliament. These submissions cover issues such as closed circuit television, abortion law reform, sentencing issues in our court system and changes to legislation already in place, which are called amendments.

The Intervasion of the UK was a 1994 electronic civil disobedience and collective action against John Major's Criminal Justice Bill which sought to outlaw outdoor dance festivals and "music with a repetitive beat". Launched by a group called The Zippies from San Francisco's 181 Club on Guy Fawkes Day, November 5, 1994, it resulted in government websites going down for at least a week. It utilised a form of Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) known as the Email bomb in order to overload servers as a form of online protest and Internet activism. It was the first such use of the Internet and technology as a weapon of struggle and/or civil disobedience, and preceded the 1995 Italian NetStrike.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protection of Freedoms Act 2012</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As the Protection of Freedoms Bill, it was introduced in February 2011, by the Home Secretary, Theresa May. The bill was sponsored by the Home Office. On Tuesday, 1 May 2012, the Protection of Freedoms Bill completed its passage through Parliament and received royal assent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public Order Ordinance</span>

The Public Order Ordinance (’POO’) is a piece of primary legislation in Hong Kong. It codifies a number of old common law public order offences. It imposes notification requirements for public processions and meetings which resemble a licensing regime. It also provides for the designation of restricted areas along the Hong Kong-China border and in the military installations. The 1967 Ordinance was enacted in the aftermath of the 1967 Leftist riots. For the following decades, the stringent control over public processions and meetings was relaxed incrementally until 1990s when it was brought in line with human rights standards. Upon Hong Kong handover, the amendments in the 1990s were decreed "not adopted as the laws of the HKSAR" by the NPCSC of China and therefore reverted.

The Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act is a private member's bill, criminalising the actions of protesters who cover their faces during tumultuous demonstrations and introducing a five-year prison sentence for the offence, introduced before the House of Commons of Canada in October 2011 during the 41st Parliament. On February 15, 2012, a 190–97 vote confirmed that the bill would enter a second reading and be sent to the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022</span> Act of the United Kingdom Parliament

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that was introduced by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It gives more power to the police, criminal justice, and sentencing legislation, and it encompasses restrictions on "unacceptable" protests, crimes against children, and sentencing limits. It was passed by the Houses of Parliament on 26 April 2022 and received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022.

The Parliament of New South Wales passed the Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 on 1 April 2022. The legislation amended the Roads Act 1993 and the Crimes Act 1900 to create new criminal penalties for protest activities. The incumbent Liberal-National Coalition Government introduced the Bill on the 30th of March 2022 to curtail the use of Non-violent direct action tactics by climate change protestors. The Parliament passed the Bill in the context of repeated disruptions to peak hour traffic on the Spit Bridge by Fireproof Australia activists and the use of Lock-on devices at Port Botany and in the Hunter Region by Blockade Australia. The NSW Greens and Animal Justice Party attempted to Filibuster the Bill in the New South Wales Legislative Council; however, the Government ultimately passed the legislation with the support of the NSW Labor Opposition.

References

  1. 1 2 Chester, Jerry (28 May 2017). "The rave that changed the law". BBC News. Retrieved 27 November 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Revolt of the Ravers – The Movement against the Criminal Justice Act in Britain 1993-95". Datacide. 7 April 2014. Retrieved 13 November 2016.
  3. "John Major – 1992 Conservative Party Conference Speech". Ukpol.co.uk. 30 November 2015.
  4. Colin Brown (7 October 1993). "Howard seeks to placate 'angry majority': Home Secretary tells party that balance in criminal justice system will be tilted towards public". The Independent.
  5. Colin Brown (25 March 1994). "Labour in split over crime Bill". The Independent.
  6. Rachel Taylor (6 February 2014). "Section 60: a most draconian stop-and-search law that plays to police prejudice". The Guardian.
  7. Jake Bowers (5 June 2002). "No room to move". The Guardian.
  8. "Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill (1994)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . House of Lords. 20 June 1994. col. 59. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  9. "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Feb 1994". Parliament.uk.
  10. "Gay Age of Consent: Currie needed just 14 Labour supporters: 'Noes' from opposition parties that were natural supporters of equality amendment are focus of recriminations". The Independent. 23 February 1994.
  11. "Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill (1994)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . House of Lords. 20 June 1994. col. 49. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
  12. Brewster B. & Broughton F. (1999) Last Night a Dj Saved My Life: The History of the Disc Jockey, Page 373, Grove Press, ISBN   0-8021-3688-5
  13. Parker, Rosey. "Demo against the Criminal Justice Bill". Eternity Magazine: Issue 21, August 1994. pp. 58–59.
  14. 1 2 "Marching against the Criminal Justice Act, July 1994". History Is Made at Night. 30 August 2013.
  15. Matt Smith (28 February 2016). "2nd Anti Criminal Justice Bill October '94". Mattkoarchive.com.
  16. "Blame disputed after demo violence". The Guardian. 10 October 1994.
  17. Danny Penman (11 October 1994). "The Park Lane Riot: How Park Lane was turned into a battlefield". The Independent.
  18. "Howard's way proved unfair -- the controversial Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is gradually being redressed by the UK and European courts". The Law Society Gazette. 18 May 2000.
  19. The Faber Book of Pop (1995), ed. Hanif Koureshi and Jon Savage, p. 799
  20. George Monbiot (21 February 1997). "Multi-issue Politics". Monbiot.com.>
  21. Gilbert J. Discographies: Dance Music, Culture, and the Politics of Sound, Page 150, Routledge 1999, ISBN   0-415-17032-X
  22. ed. South N. (1999) Drugs: Cultures, Controls and Everyday Life, Page 30, SAGE Publications ISBN   0-7619-5235-7
  23. Meaden, B. (2006) TRANCENational ALIENation Page 19, Lulu, ISBN   1-4116-8543-1
  24. Ally Fogg (21 July 2009). "The prophecy of 1994". The Guardian.
  25. Pattison, Louis (21 July 2014). "How the Political Warning of Autechre's Anti EP Made it a Warp Records Classic". Vice . Retrieved 25 February 2018.
  26. "Orbital Interview". iNews.co.uk. 1 December 2017.
  27. Finchett-Maddock, Lucy (7 July 2015). "Their Law: The New Energies of UK Squats, Social Centres and Eviction Resistance in the Fight Against Expropriation". Critical Legal Thinking.
  28. Psaar, Hans-Christian (28 January 2009). "Commodities for the Jilted Generation". Datacide. Retrieved 27 November 2017.
  29. Rhian Jones: Clampdown: Pop-cultural Wars on Class and Gender. Zero Books 2013, ISBN   978-1-780-99708-7
  30. Liner notes, NRB:58 No Repetitive Beats, NRB58CD, Six6 Records