The sinister targeting of Tobias Ellwood MP and his family this week represents another example of the serious and escalating risks faced by Parliamentarians.
In responding to the pre-planned protest outside Ellwood’s family home, Dorset Police enacted what has become the standard playbook for the police.
As the mob of 100 ‘protestors’ gathered in the darkness to shout and scream chants through a megaphone, wave flags and accuse the MP of being “complicit in genocide” the police attended and, according to their later statement, “liaised with the organisers to ensure people could exercise their right to protest”.
As the relentless Pro-Palestinian protests continue, we find police forces, prosecutors and the courts engaging themselves in a ‘balancing of rights’ exercise to adjudge whose rights, and which, are to be prioritised.
On one side are the rights of protestors to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. Neither of these rights are absolute – they are subject to limitations ‘as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and public safety’. Despite the police’s solemn invocation, the Human Rights Act itself provides no explicit ‘right to protest’.
On the other side is the right of Mr Ellwood, his family and neighbours to a private and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
On too many occasions, the outcome appears to be that the rights of protestors are prioritised above everyone else. Certainly, on this occasion the police appear to have decided that the rights of Ellwood, his family, his neighbours’ and indeed anyone else passing by were less important than the rights of the protestors to stage their demonstration.
Given the perversity of the outcome, we should not be surprised if many ask whether the Human Rights Act is the appropriate means through which such decisions should be made.
Many politicians now face a daily barrage of threats, stalking and harassment. It is common-place for MPs to have panic alarms and bomb-proof letterboxes installed in their homes and offices. Several have revealed that they have been forced to wear stab vests while working in their constituencies.
It is impossible to forget the horrifying murders of Sir David Amess MP two years ago and Jo Cox MP eight years ago – both whilst undertaking work in their constituencies.
This cannot be dismissed as merely the normal thrust of robust political debate – that is something many politicians relish – this is criminal behaviour at its worst.
And whilst the potential impact on politicians and their families is undoubtedly grave we must recognise that there is something even greater at stake – the nature of our democratic settlement itself.
The health of our democracy is dependent on good people being willing to enter the political arena; it requires that those people are willing to engage in honest debates on the most contentious policy questions. Neither is possible if we allow the risks of doing so to be so high that prospective politicians simply decide it is no longer worth it.
When defending inaction against disruptive protestors, the police often take refuge in the suggestion that their hands are tied by an insufficiency in the law. No such case can be made here.
Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 gives the police the power to give instructions to individuals outside someone’s home seeking to ‘persuade the resident that he should not do something that he is entitled to do’ and is likely to be ‘causing alarm or distress’. Protestors can be instructed to leave the vicinity and not return for up to 3 months – it is a criminal offence not to comply.
Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 gives the police the power to give instructions to protestors where they believe that the protests will cause ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’ or if the noise created would likely cause someone to ‘suffer alarm or distress’. It is a criminal offence not to comply.
The protestors were outside Ellwood’s home for several hours – not leaving until 8.50pm. It is difficult to conceive how this noisy gathering of 100 people could not have caused alarm and distress.
It is incumbent on the police, with the support of prosecutors and the courts, to use the powers given to them by Parliament. That is what should have happened this week. There must be no repeat of this timidity – only robust action will suffice.
Nothing less than our democracy is at stake.
David Spencer is the Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange and a former Detective Chief Inspector in the Metropolitan Police
