Crime and Policing Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

This is a huge Bill with more than 300 pages of measures, but I wish to focus on the extra powers it contains to police protests, and particularly clauses 86 and 95, about which civil liberties organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty International and Big Brother Watch, as well as trade unions, have raised loud alarm bells. I also wish to take the opportunity to recognise more broadly the dangerous direction of travel of the increasing criminalisation of legitimate and peaceful protest in this country which, as many will recognise, is being mirrored around the world.

In recent years we have seen the introduction of a vast swathe of anti-protest measures, including new police powers that have been used increasingly to clamp down on freedom of assembly and expression. Those powers are being extended yet again in the Bill. The Tories’ controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023 and the “serious disruption” regulations all brought in wide-ranging new powers. Those include allowing the police to impose “conditions” on any protest that is deemed to be disruptive or to cause “serious annoyance” to the local community, and sentences of up to 10 years in prison for damaging memorials such as statues. Those of us who fought those measures tooth and nail have now seen our fears realised, with clampdowns on the right to protest peacefully.

Last month the aggressive policing of the national Palestine protest led to the arrest of an estimated 77 protesters. Even Members of this House were called in for police questioning, as was an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor who was carrying flowers to lay for the dead children of Gaza. We cannot underestimate the chilling impact that that heavy-handed policing of peaceful protests will have on our basic rights and freedoms. From striking workers to the national Palestine demos and farmers’ protests, huge demonstrations and protests are becoming more commonplace across the political spectrum, as people across the country and beyond feel that they are losing their voices in their workplaces and the political sphere. Instead of continuing down that dangerous road, we should be taking the opportunity that the Bill presents to roll back some of those powers, defend our civil liberties, and restore our proud traditions of freedom of speech, expression, and assembly.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Johnson]

No, I am not taking interventions—sorry.

In this country we have a proud tradition of standing up for what we believe in, but that has increasingly come under threat, and measures in the Bill continue on that trajectory. I hope that the Minister and Government will take those points on board and consider amendments in Committee to roll back some of the draconian anti-protest legislation and restore our civil liberties—moves on which I am sure we can find common ground across the House.

Lastly, I want to turn to the provisions in the Bill that will further criminalise Roma and Traveller communities, and the impact that certain clauses will have on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities such as those living on the Tara Park site in my Liverpool Riverside constituency. In particular, I want to raise concerns around clause 3 in part 1 of the Bill, which extends police dispersal powers and, as the Traveller movement has stated, risks leading to even more heavy-handed policing of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. As with the anti-protest provisions in the Bill, we must see such measures in the broader context of the increasing criminalisation of already marginalised communities. As such, I hope the Government will go back to the drawing board and consider using the Bill to repeal section 60C to 60E of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This Bill is the first under Labour of its kind for a generation. Let us use it as an opportunity to protect our most marginalised communities and defend civil liberties.

Crime and Policing Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 13 in my name and new clause 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel).

New clause 13 proposes to change the law on joint enterprise. For those who do not know, this is a centuries-old doctrine that allows multiple people to be convicted of a crime, usually murder or manslaughter, even if only one person committed the fatal act. Evidence demonstrates it leads to unjust convictions, disproportionately impacting young black and working-class people, with young black men 16 times more likely to be convicted under joint enterprise than their white counterparts. I thank all who supported my private Member’s Bill that had its Second Reading in February 2024 and for their continued support for the campaign, particularly Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association.

As a result of a judicial review brought by Liberty and JENGbA, the Crown Prosecution Service conducted a pilot survey of joint enterprise cases, resulting in access to accurate data and highlighting the racial disparities that exist. Case law on joint enterprise was reversed by a Supreme Court ruling in 2016. The Jogee case identified how the law had taken “a wrong turn” for 30 years. The Law Commission is now undertaking a review of homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. It will examine the law on joint enterprise in light of the Supreme Court ruling on Jogee, with campaigners anticipating clear solutions on the disparities and inequality.

While I understand the Government have some reservations about my amendment, it is clear that there is recognition across the House that joint enterprise needs to be fixed. The prosecution of joint enterprise cases is flawed and racialised. The 2016 Supreme Court ruling did not resolve the key problems with the law. Speculative prosecution theories are accepted in place of strong evidence. This allows and encourages racist stereotyping, using gang narratives to imply collective intent, and using a person’s taste in music as evidence of being in a gang, with police being called as expert witnesses on drill music, which is a conflict of interest.

Art not Evidence is making significant inroads in this space, proposing a criminal evidence (creative and artistic expression) Bill to limit the admissibility of evidence of a person’s creative and artistic expression in criminal proceedings and for connected purposes. The Westminster Commission on Joint Enterprise is gathering evidence and will produce a report for the Government in 2026.

Reform of joint enterprise is long overdue. It has gone as far as it can in the courts, and it is now for Parliament to act; that is what the former Director of Public Prosecutions who is now the Prime Minister has said.

New clause 50 would enshrine the right to protest in law. The purpose of this amendment is to keep public authority powers proportionate and to uphold the right of our society to protest peacefully as a fundamental pillar of free and equal democracy. The right to protest and the freedom to express dissent goes back centuries and is championed across the political spectrum. From the peasants revolt to the suffragettes, we celebrate the great British tradition of direct action. So many of our freedoms have been won this way, including workers’ rights. Most recently, we have seen the farmers protesting outside Parliament, the mass trespass organised by the Ramblers’ Association in defence of our right to roam, striking workers, anti-war protesters and beyond. Millions of people have marched peacefully against the genocide in Gaza. Thousands of disabled people have protested against proposed welfare and disabled benefit changes. We have seen protesters outside Parliament against the assisted dying Bill and yesterday pro-life protesters gathered outside this place.

The ability to protest and freedom of expression and assembly are protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights and are enshrined in UK law. The planned demonstration outside the BBC headquarters in January demanding impartial coverage of Israel’s war in Gaza was banned by the Met police on the basis that the headquarters are in close proximity to a synagogue. This was after weeks of meetings and agreement of the route with the Met police. This is a serious infringement of our right to protest. If we cannot protest outside the headquarters of our public broadcaster, what does that say about our democracy? This should be of concern for all who believe in democracy and free society. The Government have a chance now to change course and roll back on these clampdowns for our rights and freedoms, for our democracy.

Crime and Policing Bill

Kim Johnson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know feels strongly about this issue, as do many others—I very much respect that position. I met him a few months ago, when the review had just started. The review has yet to conclude, but it will do so in the coming months. The work that Lord Macdonald is undertaking is quite substantial, and I know, having received updates on what he is doing and who he is talking to, that it is wide and is taking a bit longer than expected, but that is in order to get it right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will know that the cumulative disruption amendment was announced by the Home Secretary after the Heaton Park attack. Perhaps we will come to this more in closing the debate, but I think there is a lack of understanding in some quarters—I do not mean my hon. Friend—about the nature of that amendment. To be clear, sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 empower senior police officers to impose conditions on processions and on public assemblies respectively. They can impose conditions only under certain criteria to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption. We are not changing sections 12 or 14. At the moment, the police can consider cumulative disruption when looking at whether a protest should have conditions imposed on it.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her response to my letter on cumulative disruption, signed by 50 MPs, which would give the police powers to limit strikes and industrial action. Your letter states:

“I have no desire to infringe on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am on my feet, so please be seated. “Your letter states”? I do not think I have corresponded with the hon. Member. Continue.

[Kim Johnson]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that a future Government might be less benevolent towards workers’ struggles and could exploit those powers? Will she please explain to the House why we have not been given the right to debate, discuss and vote on amendment 312?

[Sarah Jones]

Let me just finish explaining what we are doing and then I will come on to picketing.

If there is a risk of serious public disorder, senior police officers can impose conditions. At the moment, they can consider cumulative disruption as one of the aspects they take into account when deciding whether to impose conditions. To be clear, imposing conditions means things like moving where a march is going, limiting the hours that it can work under or limiting the number of people. They can already take into account cumulative disruption, but we are changing that so that they must take that into account—they must think about it. That does not change the guardrails of sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act; it just says that at the moment they can consider cumulative disruption, but in future they will consider it. That is the amendment.

On this Government’s belief in the right to strike and to protest, of course that is sacrosanct and nothing has changed in our view on that. We do not believe that this legislation will stop the right to picket. I know that lots of Members will have views on that and will not be satisfied, but we will always defend the right to strike, and we have absolutely no desire to infringe lawful picketing at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I will speak to Lords amendment 312 on cumulative disruption. I am deeply alarmed by the amendment, which would require senior police officers to take into account any so-called cumulative impacts of frequent protests on local areas when considering whether to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. In short, the Government are giving the police unprecedented powers to restrict or prohibit protests that they expect to be too disruptive. That is an unacceptable attack on our democracy. These powers represent a significant expansion of state authority and risk undermining long-standing democratic freedoms. They also set a dangerous precedent for the suppression of dissent and inhibit people’s legitimate right to peaceful protest.

With the rise of the right in this country, that expansion of power leaves the potential for future Governments to misuse them to suppress and stamp out all forms of protest, strikes and demonstrations. Our fundamental right to peaceful protest, which has existed for many years, must be safeguarded against any attempt to constrict it.

[Kim Johnson]

Although I support many elements of this Bill, I cannot support Lords amendment 312. The Bill has come back to the Commons without the proper scrutiny it requires and, despite repeated requests, Ministers have failed to provide that. The Bill returns to this House with a troubling number of late changes made in the Lords that severely limit our ability to examine major amendments, especially those that impact the fundamental right to protest—a right that has already been significantly eroded in recent years due to a number of pieces of draconian legislation.

I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in his motion to reject amendment 312, which is supported by 30 MPs. We have pushed hard for a vote today on the proposals, which will have a far-reaching, draconian impact on our civil liberties. I am disappointed that the motion will not be reached, demonstrating a fundamental failure of the democratic process.

Lords amendment 312 would give police new powers to restrict protests on the basis of so-called cumulative disruption, but what does that actually mean? It is about giving them the discretion to limit or fully ban a demonstration based on the combined impact of multiple protests over time. The move is the latest in a series of anti-protest measures introduced by successive Governments in recent years, and I have to say that, as a Labour MP, I am very disappointed with the draconian anti-protest proposals being pushed by this Government.

[Sammy Wilson]

What does the hon. Lady say to the people who become the target of those continual protests? The protesters recognise that there is a vulnerable area, a vulnerable community, part of a city or a piece of the country’s infrastructure, such that, when they protest there on a regular basis, they cause maximum disruption to the lives of the people who live there. What does she say to those people? Should they not have protection?

[Kim Johnson]

I have to say that I disagree with the right hon. Member.

Although today’s proposals have not come in under the radar through secondary legislation, as the Tory Government tried before they were ultimately defeated in court, amendment 312 has sneakily come in through the back door from the Lords, leaving MPs with no opportunity for scrutiny, debate or vote.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the vague wording could lead a police force to ban, for example, a Pride protest three months after a farmers’ protest? There is no clarity as to whether a protest is damaging; it is just that the protest is cumulative.

[Kim Johnson]

The hon. Member makes a valid point, and those are some of the issues that have been raised by civil liberties organisations and disputed by the Minister in the House this afternoon. The situation means that many colleagues who are here today will rely on the Government’s reassurances that the proposals strike a fair balance between permitting protests and preventing disruption, without being given the time to consider what that really means. I therefore ask them to heed my words closely.

The suffragettes protested for decades for women to win the right to vote. It took years of disruption and fighting a patriarchal system for them to win the historic gains from which we all benefit today. Who would condemn their action, or argue that their protests should have been made less impactful, and their struggle for women’s liberation harder and longer? Looking back on the suffragettes’ fight, it is inconceivable that we would support a restriction on their struggle on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. It was exactly that process of sustained pressure that won women the vote.

The same applies to the fight to bring down the evil anti-apartheid regime, during which I was proud to cut my political teeth as a young activist in Liverpool. There, we occupied council buildings and universities, raised money and organised boycotts of goods, sports and culture. We marched and held street stalls and mass demonstrations until that evil regime fell—another victory of the powerless over the powerful, made possible by sustained action and protest. Without sustained protest, we would not have the hard-won employment rights that so many of us benefit from today.