<\/p>\n
The Criminal Justice and Public\u00a0Order Act 1994 has 171 Sections, almost all of which have\u00a0provoked considerable opposition from Civil Liberties groups,\u00a0professionals in the legal and penal fields and groups of people\u00a0who are directly targeted by the Act. This is a very brief\u00a0summary of those parts of the CJA which affect the ability of\u00a0people to protest or take action against environmental\u00a0desecration and to live “alternative” lifestyles which\u00a0may be less environmentally-destructive than the\u00a0“mainstream.” Part V of the Act creates a series of new\u00a0criminal offences. These could potentially have the effect of\u00a0criminalising a large number of people, including homeless\u00a0persons squatting in empty properties; travellers living in\u00a0caravans on land other than authorised official sites; those\u00a0organising or attending ‘raves’; and people participating in a\u00a0wide range of demonstrations or public protests. Most of the new\u00a0offences are imprisonable, while others are punishable with a\u00a0fine.<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-festivals\/0166_15slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We consider that it is inappropriate to subject to criminal penalties those\u00a0involved in the wide range of activities covered by these new offences.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
We are particularly concerned that the availability of prison sentences\u00a0in some cases, and the likelihood in other cases of imprisonment for failure\u00a0to pay fines, will lead to the use of prison for activities which do not\u00a0deserve to be criminalised. This will increase the strains on the prison\u00a0system at a time when the pressure of numbers is already severe and steadily\u00a0increasing. In our view, this is a misuse of the penal system.
\nWe hope that the police, prosecutors and the courts will\u00a0apply the new laws with discretion and restraint, to avoid the inappropriately\u00a0harsh treatment of people who in our view should not be processed through\u00a0our police stations, courts and prison cells.\u00a0Please consider the implications of these provisions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
TRAVELLERS<\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span>RAVERS<\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/span>TRESPASS<\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span>SQUATTERS<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/a>The Act enables a police officer to direct two\u00a0or more people whom he or she ‘reasonably believes’ to be\u00a0trespassing on land with the purpose of ‘residing there for any\u00a0period’ to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or property\u00a0which they have with them. The police can exercise this power if\u00a0‘reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier\u00a0to ask them to leave’ (when the land is common land the local\u00a0authority is the ‘occupier’) and if they have between them six or\u00a0more vehicles on the land.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Caravans are vehicles for this purpose, so six\u00a0vehicles could be made up of three caravans and three other\u00a0vehicles used for towing them. Even if there are fewer than six\u00a0vehicles, the police can exercise the power if the occupier has\u00a0asked the trespassers to leave and any of them has caused\u00a0‘damage’ to the land or to property on the land. It has been held\u00a0by the court that walking across a field constitutes damage: it\u00a0is clearly impossible to reside on land without causing ‘damage’\u00a0to it in this sense.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>If a trespasser fails to leave the land ‘as\u00a0soon as reasonably practicable’, or returns to the land within\u00a0three months, he or she commits an offence with a maximum penalty\u00a0of three months’ imprisonment. When a direction has been given\u00a0and a trespasser has failed to remove a vehicle, the police may\u00a0seize and remove the vehicle. Seized vehicles may be retained,\u00a0disposed of or destroyed; and charges for the removal, retention,\u00a0disposal and destruction of a vehicle may be levied on the person\u00a0from whom it has been seized.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Act also enables local authorities to\u00a0direct people camping in caravans or other vehicles on unoccupied\u00a0land, or on occupied land without the owner’s consent, to leave\u00a0the land and remove their vehicles from it: those concerned need\u00a0not be trespassers nor have behaved in any particular way.\u00a0Failing to comply with such a direction as soon as practicable,\u00a0or returning to the land within three months, is an offence\u00a0punishable with a fine.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>At the same time the Act repeals the duty\u00a0imposed on local authorities by the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to\u00a0provide sites for gypsies and the provisions of the Local\u00a0Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 empowering central\u00a0government to pay grants to local authorities for capital\u00a0expenditure on providing gypsy caravan sites.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Some travellers are gypsy families for whom\u00a0travelling and living in caravans is an inherited way of life.\u00a0Others are New Age travellers: recent research by the Children’s\u00a0Society has found that, contrary to the popular myth, the\u00a0majority have been forced into travelling through such reasons as\u00a0homelessness, abuse or family breakdown. According to the\u00a0Society’s report ‘Out of Site, Out of Mind’ (1994):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>‘Two thirds of the new age travellers involved\u00a0in the study reported that they had been forced into travelling\u00a0because of the circumstances they had been in. They included\u00a0homelessness, family or relationship breakdown, leaving care,\u00a0leaving prison, insecure housing arrangements, leaving the army,\u00a0the need to escape from an abusive partner, and financial\u00a0difficulties…. Only two out of the 98 travellers in the study\u00a0stated that they had an existing alternative to travelling There\u00a0were no travellers in the study who believed they had realistic\u00a0access to current authorised sites.’<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Caravan Sites Act 1968 placed a duty on\u00a0local authorities to provide sufficient caravan sites for gypsies\u00a0in their areas, and 100% capital grants for this purpose were\u00a0provided by central government. Once an authority was deemed to\u00a0have enough sites it became ‘designated’ and the authority then\u00a0received additional powers to remove unlawfully parked caravans\u00a0from other land. Although there was a substantial increase in the\u00a0number of official sites following the 1968 Act, many authorities\u00a0have not provided adequate sites and only 38% of English local\u00a0authorities have been designated.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Department of the Environment figures show that\u00a0in July 1993 an estimated 4,402 gypsy caravans were on\u00a0unauthorised encampments compared with 5,432 on authorised\u00a0council sites and 2,976 on authorised private sites. (These\u00a0figures do not include travellers other than gypsies.) Research\u00a0by the Save the Children Fund has shown that the increased number\u00a0of sites has resulted in a generally higher standard of care for\u00a0the children of travelling families on those sites. It has\u00a0facilitated regular attendance at school, registration with a GP\u00a0and regular arrangements for income support without the need for\u00a0constant re-registration because of changing residence. Stable\u00a0sites also enable travellers to look for work, either seasonal or\u00a0long-term. However, following the Criminal Justice and Public\u00a0Order Act local authorities are no longer under a duty to provide\u00a0sites and, if they do, they will no longer receive grants for the\u00a0capital costs – yet the new powers to order travellers to leave\u00a0land will apply to all areas of the country, not just those areas\u00a0which are judged to have an adequate provision of authorised\u00a0sites.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Government has drawn up guidance advising\u00a0that the powers contained in the Act should be used with\u00a0discretion, and it has issued planning guidance urging local\u00a0authorities to assist gypsies making planning applications to\u00a0establish private sites. Nevertheless, the inadequate number of\u00a0sites means that many travellers will be unable to camp anywhere\u00a0legally: it will effectively criminalise their way of life.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>They will constantly be at risk of being moved\u00a0on, harassed, evicted and prosecuted – or alternatively of\u00a0abandoning their way of life and becoming homeless with, at best,\u00a0a dismal future in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. The\u00a0consequences of either course would be devastating for families.\u00a0The only situation in which travellers would be legally safe from\u00a0eviction is where the landowner has given explicit consent for\u00a0them to stay – and in that case, he or she would have committed\u00a0an offence under the Caravan Sites Act 1960 by permitting an\u00a0unlicensed encampment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>As David Wilmot, Chief Constable of Greater\u00a0Manchester, has stated (speaking on behalf of the Association of\u00a0Chief Police Officers):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ‘Legislation is not the total answer to\u00a0this problem, as I feel all it may achieve is to pass the\u00a0problem on more frequently. All it achieves is to virtually\u00a0criminalise anyone who has a travelling way of life and lives\u00a0in a caravan.’<\/p>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/a>Not only does it criminalise them – it also\u00a0makes them liable to harsh penalties, including imprisonment. The\u00a0seizure of caravans is a particularly harsh penalty: for other\u00a0people in society it is extremely rare that criminal proceedings\u00a0result in seizure of their homes and all their belongings. The\u00a0actual removal of vehicles is likely to lead to violent\u00a0confrontations between the police, local government officers and\u00a0travellers, who would obviously object and try to prevent their\u00a0homes from being taken away, which would render them completely\u00a0homeless.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Enforced homelessness will place an increased\u00a0burden on local authority housing departments; the costs to the\u00a0courts, the police and the prison system are likely to be\u00a0substantial; and there will also be costs to local authorities\u00a0because of increased child welfare responsibilities for\u00a0travellers’ children under the Children Act 1989. Yet the cost of\u00a0providing a pitch on a legal site with water, sewage and\u00a0electricity is \u00a327,000 – a much lower amount than the cost of\u00a0providing regular housing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Previously under section 39 of the Public Order\u00a0Act 1986 people who trespassed on land with 12 or more vehicles\u00a0or damaged property or used threats or violence could be required\u00a0to leave the land by police and arrested if they failed to\u00a0comply. Otherwise, however, the civil rather than the criminal\u00a0law governed trespass by travellers, who could be ordered to\u00a0leave under county court eviction procedures. We consider that it\u00a0should continue to do so, and that the solution to the problem of\u00a0unauthorised parking of caravans lies in providing an adequate\u00a0number of authorised sites – not in criminalising travellers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Organisations working with and on behalf of\u00a0travellers argue that the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act\u00a01968 should be restored, with their duty to provide caravan\u00a0sites, coupled with central government grants to facilitate- the\u00a0provision of sites and an extension of the Act’s remit to cover\u00a0all those who genuinely depend on mobile accommodation as their\u00a0only home throughout the year. They argue also that there should\u00a0be a clear commitment via planning directives to local\u00a0authorities, grants, mortgage relief and information to\u00a0landowners and housing associations, so that both private and\u00a0public sites are encouraged; that sites should vary in type, from\u00a0long term to short stay (a few months) to emergency stop-over\u00a0provisions; and that suitable unused and disused central\u00a0government and local authority land should be made available for\u00a0sites.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Act empowers the police to direct persons\u00a0assembling on land to leave the land and remove any vehicles\u00a0which they have on the land, if they believe that a gathering\u00a0will take place without an entertainment licence at which the\u00a0playing of amplified music during the night ‘is likely to cause\u00a0serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality.’ Music is\u00a0defined in the Act as ‘sounds wholly or predominantly\u00a0characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive\u00a0beats’.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>A person who, knowing that such a direction has\u00a0been given, fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably\u00a0practicable or renters the land within seven days commits an\u00a0offence with a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment. The\u00a0police are also given powers to seize vehicles and sound\u00a0equipment which have not been removed from the land. When someone\u00a0is convicted of this offence, the court may order forfeiture of\u00a0sound equipment which was used at the gathering. New powers\u00a0govern the retention, disposal and destruction of seized vehicles\u00a0similar to those described earlier which apply in relation to the\u00a0seizure of travellers’ vehicles.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The police are also empowered, within five\u00a0miles of the site of a rave, to stop people who they reasonably\u00a0believe are on their way to the rave and to direct them not to\u00a0proceed towards the rave: anyone failing to comply with the\u00a0direction commits an offence punishable with a fine. Playing loud\u00a0music at night can, of course, cause distress to nearby\u00a0residents, especially if it is persistent – but a range of powers\u00a0already exists which can be used to deal with such nuisance.\u00a0Local authorities can serve noise abatement notices under\u00a0existing legislation and can take action if these are not obeyed.\u00a0Eviction orders can be obtained to stop gatherings and remove\u00a0people. Police can also use their powers of arrest and seize\u00a0equipment to prevent a breach of the peace. The sensible use of\u00a0such powers differs greatly from the wholesale criminalisation of\u00a0groups of young people by banning their raves, parties and\u00a0gatherings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>If raves are effectively banned and no\u00a0alternative, legal outlets are provided for those activities,\u00a0then the result is likely to be a mushrooming of illegal events\u00a0in which those taking part will by definition be criminalised.\u00a0(Obtaining an entertainment licence is rarely a feasible option\u00a0for organisations running free or community raves, who have\u00a0neither the financial resources nor the political clout to obtain\u00a0licences. It is becoming common for local authorities to charge a\u00a0non-returnable fee of several thousand pounds before they will\u00a0consider a licence application for an outdoor event. It is also\u00a0very difficult for free or community rave organisers to obtain\u00a0suitable legal sites.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The case for working with rather than against\u00a0the organisers of community raves is well illustrated by the\u00a0experience of Luton where, when a collective called Exodus began\u00a0to put on regular raves, the crime rate dropped by 6%. Chief\u00a0Inspector Mike Brown of Bedfordshire Police commented: ‘Licensed\u00a0premises were experiencing a fair amount of loss of trade, loss\u00a0of customers. People might pop into the pub for a quick drink\u00a0around ten, but then they’d be off for the rest of the night….\u00a0As a result there was a lessening of alcohol-related offences,\u00a0gratuitous assaults, bottle throwing, the random public disorder\u00a0that generally goes with town centres and drink.’<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Exodus has put its proceeds from the rave\u00a0parties into community projects. They have renovated a derelict\u00a0former old people’s home in Luton, in which they have rehoused 29\u00a0people, and a derelict farm which they have turned into a\u00a0‘community farm’ and where they have rehoused another seven \u00a0people. Local statutory agencies have directed some homeless\u00a0young offenders towards Exodus which has housed them, supported\u00a0them and turned them away from crime. In the words of one 17 year\u00a0old resident:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>‘If I hadn’t met Exodus, and hadn’t moved into\u00a0the Manor or gone to the raves, I would be in prison now because\u00a0I would have carried on crime. It would have caught up with me in\u00a0the end…. This is a solution to a problem for me, and for many\u00a0other people. So why is the government trying to stop this? The\u00a0Criminal Justice Bill doesn’t stop any problems. It just causes\u00a0more problems by criminalising people. what’s happening here is a\u00a0solution to crime, because I used to do crime whereas now I\u00a0don’t.’<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has\u00a0proposed that the organisation of legal raves should be\u00a0encouraged through the use by local authorities of maximum\u00a0discretion in the granting of licences and involving responsible\u00a0organisers of raves in the process. This could also be assisted\u00a0if licence charges were waived or kept at cost for free or\u00a0community raves and if central government, local authorities and\u00a0other landowners were encouraged to identify and make available\u00a0suitable sites. Working with responsible organisers in this way\u00a0can help to ensure that safety requirements are adhered to and\u00a0increase the scope at events for education on drug use and\u00a0misuse.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Act empowers a chief constable to apply\u00a0for an order prohibiting ‘trespassory assemblies’ for a period of\u00a0not more than four days if the police reasonably believe that an\u00a0assembly is likely to be held on land without the occupier’s\u00a0permission which will result – in ‘serious disruption to the life\u00a0of the community’ or in significant damage’ to land, or to a\u00a0building or monument on it, of historical, architectural,\u00a0archaeological or scientific importance.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>To organise a prohibited assembly or to incite others to\u00a0take part in such an assembly, is an offence with a maximum penalty of three\u00a0months’ imprisonment. To take part in such an assembly is an offence punishable\u00a0with a fine. The police are given powers to stop persons whom they reasonably\u00a0believe to be on their way to such an assembly and to direct them not to\u00a0proceed towards it. Failure to comply with such a direction is an offence\u00a0punishable with a fine. Although these provisions are clearly aimed at Solstice\u00a0gatherings at Stonehenge, the legislation is extremely wide. Many different\u00a0types of demonstration or picket ranging from large political rallies to\u00a0a modest protest of parents calling for a pedestrian crossing – could be\u00a0caught by them if the police decided at their discretion (against which\u00a0there is no right of appeal) that they would involve ‘serious disruption\u00a0to the life of the community’. Anyone taking part in them would then commit\u00a0the criminal offence of participating in a trespassory assembly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Here again, the use of criminal\u00a0prosecution, fines and imprisonment for behaviour which does not\u00a0involve violence or vandalism (if it does, the ordinary criminal\u00a0law can be used) is both inappropriate and unnecessary.\u00a0Injunctions can already be obtained through the courts when there\u00a0are legitimate grounds for banning an assembly – and this is a\u00a0process in which both sides have the opportunity to argue their\u00a0case.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Act also creates a new offence of\u00a0aggravated trespass, under which it is an offence to trespass on\u00a0land and do anything intended to: a. intimidate persons so as to\u00a0deter them from engaging in a lawful activity, or b. ‘obstruct’ a\u00a0lawful activity, or c. ‘disrupt’ a lawful activity.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The lawful activity which the trespasser\u00a0tries to obstruct or disrupt can be either on the same land as\u00a0the trespasser or on adjoining land. The offence has a maximum\u00a0penalty of three months’ imprisonment. The police may order\u00a0people who they believe are committing, have committed or intend\u00a0to commit aggravated trespass to leave the land. Anyone\u00a0disobeying such a direction or returning to the land within seven\u00a0days commits an offence with a maximum penalty of three months’\u00a0imprisonment These provisions are aimed in particular at groups\u00a0such as hunt saboteurs. However, it is already against the law to\u00a0disrupt or obstruct other people’s lawful activities in ways\u00a0which involve violence, vandalism, a likely breach of the peace,\u00a0or threatening, abusive or disorderly behaviour. As the Act is\u00a0drafted, this new imprisonable offence could also apply to\u00a0peaceful protesters whose protests involve neither violence nor\u00a0vandalism. It has the effect of rendering illegal many\u00a0demonstrations which take place within the sight and hearing of\u00a0any person whose activities the demonstrators are attempting to\u00a0challenge.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>This could include people involved in\u00a0peacefully picketing shops because they disagree with their\u00a0trading policies, or trade unionists picketing factories and\u00a0other premises where they are standing on land owned by the shop\u00a0or factory or on adjoining private land. A peaceful but noisy\u00a0protest on the steps of a town held against school closures or\u00a0the reduction of nursery facilities could fall foul of the law. \u00a0The protesters would have become trespassers as their implied\u00a0permission to use the steps to enter or leave the town hall would\u00a0have been revoked; and the offence would be complete because they\u00a0would have intended to disrupt the decision-makers inside the\u00a0town hall who were engaged in ‘lawful activity’.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>As an editorial in the Independent of 25\u00a0July 1994 commented:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ‘<\/strong>The danger with criminalising\u00a0trespass is that it closes off an avenue of peaceful protest\u00a0that ought to remain open in a civilised and free society.\u00a0Many people disagree with protesters who have obstructed the\u00a0building of new roads by chaining themselves to trees. But\u00a0the same people would also accept… that the nuisance caused\u00a0by such protesters is not nearly grave enough to merit a \u00a0prison sentence.’<\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The Act creates an offence of failure to obey\u00a0an interim possession order. A squatter commits the offence if he\u00a0or she is on premises as a trespasser and fails to leave the\u00a0premises within 24 hours of the serving of an interim possession\u00a0order or returns to the premises within one year. The offence has\u00a0a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The creation of a criminal offence of failure\u00a0to obey an interim possession order is a wholly inappropriate use\u00a0of the criminal law. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of\u00a0squats are empty properties, rarely owned by private individuals,\u00a0which have been occupied by people who cannot find or afford\u00a0anywhere else to live and have no practical alternative. A survey\u00a0in 1991 by the Advisory Service for Squatters of 2,213 squats\u00a0found that only two were owned by private individuals. 1,640 were\u00a0owned by local authorities, 365 by housing associations, 145 by\u00a0commercial owners, 53 by government and public bodies, four by\u00a0church bodies, and in four cases ownership was disputed.\u00a0The new offence will be committed after the<\/p>\n <\/p>\n owner of the property has obtained an ‘interim possession order’.\u00a0Home Office Ministers have promised that alleged squatters will\u00a0be given notice that an application for such an order has been\u00a0made and that they can make written representations. However,\u00a0they have no right to be present at a hearing at which they can\u00a0present their case and contest the landlord’s evidence before an\u00a0order is granted. Once the order has been made, they will then be\u00a0forced to leave their accommodation at very short notice on pain\u00a0of committing an imprisonable offence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Although in theory it would be possible to\u00a0achieve reinstatement by applying subsequently for the order to\u00a0be set aside, a full hearing of the matter will be possible only\u00a0after the occupiers have left the property. They will be forced\u00a0to leave first, and only then will they be entitled to a hearing\u00a0at which they can argue that they should never have been asked to\u00a0leave in the first place.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>24 hours is a wholly unreasonable period in\u00a0which to require people to gather their possessions, leave their\u00a0home and find somewhere else to live, making them liable to\u00a0prosecution and criminal penalties if they do not do so. Sudden\u00a0eviction is a distressing and shocking experience: in the case of\u00a0the estimated one-third of squats which house families with\u00a0children, the distress will be even greater. If people squat to\u00a0solve their homelessness problem, they are unlikely to have\u00a0enough money for a deposit on private accommodation. If they are\u00a0evicted, especially at 24 hours’ notice, they will have to live\u00a0on the streets, find somewhere else to squat or, if eligible, \u00a0apply to the local authority for housing with a resulting\u00a0insecure stay in cramped bed and breakfast accommodation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The procedure is almost certain to be used in\u00a0some cases against legitimate occupiers who are in fact entitled\u00a0to be there. There is a real prospect of unscrupulous landlords\u00a0misusing this procedure to evict tenants or others with a right\u00a0to occupy. Even a legitimate occupier would still have to leave\u00a0his or her home within 24 hours of the making of an interim\u00a0possession order or be arrested. After the upheaval of sudden\u00a0eviction and the distress of having to find somewhere else to\u00a0stay, many will be unable or unwilling to start a complicated\u00a0legal action against their former landlord in order to achieve\u00a0reinstatement.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The legislation is unnecessary. In the rare\u00a0case where a residential occupier has been displaced from his or\u00a0her home by squatters, or has a freehold or leasehold interest in\u00a0the property and requires it to live in, they can speedily evict\u00a0squatters (who are subject to criminal penalties if they do not\u00a0leave) using procedures provided by the Criminal Law Act 1977.\u00a0Other cases cannot reasonably be said to be so urgent as to\u00a0justify a procedure which will render people homeless and make\u00a0them liable to criminal penalties before they have any\u00a0opportunity to state their case to a court. For those other than\u00a0residential occupiers, existing civil procedures can result in\u00a0possession within one month (in cases of urgency under expedited\u00a0proceedings the period can be substantially less than one week),\u00a0while giving both parties a chance to argue their case before\u00a0requiring the occupier to leave the premises.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>The 1994 Act exempts residential occupiers, or\u00a0people acting on their behalf, from legal provisions penalising\u00a0the use of violence to secure immediate entry into premises when\u00a0someone on the premises is opposed to their entry. It will become\u00a0legal for any person to ‘use or threaten violence for the purpose\u00a0of securing entry’ to premises provided they have a signed and\u00a0witnessed statement from the owner that a tenancy agreement has\u00a0been signed for the property or that the owner or a tenant have\u00a0been displaced from their residence. There have been instances of\u00a0local authorities forging such statements for the purposes of\u00a0swift eviction under the 1977 Criminal Law Act. This practice\u00a0could increase (particularly where private landlords are\u00a0involved), with the added threat of violent eviction, under the\u00a0Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>People squat because they are homeless. Rather\u00a0than criminalising squatters, the better approach would be to\u00a0enact measures to deal with homelessness, which is the root of\u00a0the problem. Organisations concerned with homeless people argue\u00a0that this should be done through measures such as increased house\u00a0building and renovation of publicly owned property; the\u00a0encouragement of more licensing of disused and neglected\u00a0property; an expansion of self-build schemes; and the restoration\u00a0of housing benefit and income support to 16 and 17 year olds and\u00a0students, so that they are not forced by poverty to squat or live\u00a0on the streets.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Police spokespersons have been far from\u00a0enthusiastic about their role in these procedures. Mike Bennett,\u00a0Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, has commented: ‘I \u00a0can foresee police involved in the forcible eviction from\u00a0premises and those premises remaining empty, boarded up and\u00a0people saying: “was it necessary?” I can see the\u00a0problem of making criminals of people who are desperate to get\u00a0their lives back in balance, someone who has been made redundant, someone who squats in premises, who pays for gas, electricity and water – along comes a policeman and evicts them. That’s not what\u00a0I joined the police for and I don’t think a lot of people did.’<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Where a conviction for failure to obey an\u00a0interim possession order is followed by a prison sentence or by\u00a0imprisonment for fine default, the Prison Service too will be\u00a0placed in an inappropriate role – that of detaining in penal\u00a0custody homeless people or social casualties who have fallen foul\u00a0of the law through seeking somewhere for themselves and their \u00a0children to live.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>In our view, the provisions of Part V of the\u00a0Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 involve an\u00a0inappropriate use of the criminal law and the penal system. The\u00a0criminal law should not be used to harass the homeless, social\u00a0casualties or those with unconventional lifestyles. It has been\u00a0argued that these provisions are likely to contravene a series of\u00a0Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights governing\u00a0rights relating to discrimination, privacy, family life, the\u00a0peaceful enjoyment of possessions, the cultural rights of\u00a0minorities, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>We therefore favour the repeal of Part V of\u00a0the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. In the meantime the\u00a0Act gives local authorities, the police and other agencies wide\u00a0discretion in its application. Some local authorities and police\u00a0forces have drawn up guidelines and procedures designed to apply\u00a0the law in as fair and humane a fashion as possible, and we\u00a0commend this approach. In applying the new laws, the police,\u00a0local authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts\u00a0should use their discretion to ensure that squatters and\u00a0travellers are not evicted from empty properties or unoccupied\u00a0land unless there is some other suitable place for them to go;\u00a0that peaceful protesters and ravers are not subjected to\u00a0unnecessary and inappropriate criminal prosecution; and that\u00a0those prosecuted for the new offences are not added to the\u00a0growing number of minor offenders held in overstretched and\u00a0overcrowded prisons.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Most of the offences outlined above carry\u00a0maximum penalties of a 2,500 fine or 3 months imprisonment.\u00a0Breach of an IPO carries a maximum 6 months imprisonment. It is\u00a0worth noting that many of these new powers especially in relation\u00a0to festivals and raves have been in use (mostly illegally) by\u00a0police for some years (the first exclusion zone around Stonehenge\u00a0was in 1985). The CJA in this context merely formalises and makes\u00a0legal standard police practice in the face of growing awareness\u00a0of the extent to which the old laws were being abused, bent and\u00a0broken.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/a>Other parts of the Act, many of which have\u00a0also been the focus of anti-CJA activities, include:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0Criminal Justice Act (etc) Law Implications for Travellers, Ravers, Squatters, and Environmental Protesters The Criminal Justice and Public\u00a0Order Act 1994 has 171 Sections, almost all of which have\u00a0provoked considerable opposition from Civil Liberties groups,\u00a0professionals in the legal and … Continue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-36","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/36","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/36\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":830,"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/36\/revisions\/830"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/a>TRAVELLERS<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-festivals\/0165_18slide.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-festivals\/0106_10slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/a>RAVERS<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-free-party\/0177_01slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-free-party\/0178_07slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/a>TRESPASSORY ASSEMBLY AND AGGRAVATED\u00a0TRESPASS<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-festivals\/0393_19slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-reclaim-the-streets-rts\/0426_07slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/a>SQUATTERS<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/alanlodge.co.uk\/OnTheRoad\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/1\/files\/gallery-colour-velvet-revolution\/0369_18slide.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/a>CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n
\n
Rave off \u2013 move on, Home Office Press Notice<\/a><\/h6>\n
Criminal Justice Act Sections 61 \u2013 69<\/a><\/h6>\n
Anti Criminal Justice Bill Demos – On Peaceful Protest<\/a><\/h6>\n
Dissent in the UK \u2013 Criminal inJustice Act<\/a><\/h6>\n
Seizure of vehicles & sound equipment<\/a><\/h6>\n<\/div>\n