Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is currently steering the Crime and Policing Bill through Parliament. The bill, first presented on 25 February 2025, comprises 137 clauses in 15 parts and 17 Schedules over 332 pages. It is as complex as it is comprehensive, making provisions for dealing with national security, violence against women and girls, the exploitation of children and vulnerable adults, retail crime and shop theft, and anti-social behaviour. The government suggests the bill is necessary to rebuild public confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. Such language should sound alarm bells, as the ensuing legislation often ends up being more about politics and posturing than fairness and justice.
Chapter 1 of the bill outlines provisions for Respect Orders, which on face value appear to empower courts to prevent individuals from engaging in anti-social behaviour. While the aim is laudable, how these orders will be issued and the sweeping restrictions they place on individuals is worrying.
The government’s explanatory note says the order is to ‘be used to prohibit a wide variety of anti-social behaviours.’ The order will replace the civil injunction provided for under the Crime and Policing Act 2014, and any breaches of an order would be a criminal offence under Cooper’s proposed legislation. This key change means a breach of a Respect Order would be punishable by up to two years in prison.
Despite the possibility of a custodial sentence for breaching an order, the definition of what constitutes anti-social behaviour remains vague. The bill refers to it being conduct ‘that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.’
The first problem with the bill is that it empowers courts to act on the mere possibility of an offence, that someone is ‘likely’ to enact anti-social behaviour. One feels that the bar is set deliberately low, with the notes citing that the lesser civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (vs the higher criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’) will be used to determine whether an order should be issued. Policing by inference is popular with the current government, and seeing it legislated for is of little surprise.
The second problem is the bill is open to wide and varied interpretation – some even suggest political manipulation. Alarm and distress are difficult properties to measure, as witnessed during the over-policing of anti-genocide marches across the UK during the last 20 months.
The Metropolitan Police are prone to codenames, and Operation Brocks was the name given to the policing of the current anti-genocide demonstrations. The good thing about the Met’s code names is that they require a whole layer of administrative support and data to justify their existence. What does Operation Brocks data tell us? Between October 2023 and the end of December 2023, the Met arrested 153 demonstrators, of whom 117 were released without charge. March organisers, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have estimated the total attendance figure for the October to December marches at around three million. According to Open Democracy, this would ‘mean an average 0.5 people had been arrested for every 10,000 attendees. By comparison, Glastonbury Festival saw an average 1.75 arrests for every 10,000 attendees.’ Between October 2023 and December 2024, the Met arrested a total of 414 demonstrators, but the number charged hasn’t been disclosed. A substantial number of these arrests were made on mere allegations of placards and chants triggering ‘alarm and distress’ amongst counter protesters. It appears ambiguity in the wrong hands can get you arrested.
The proposed way an order would be issued is also problematic. The order can be sought for anyone over 18 years of age and granted by a County Court or High Court, and critically, ‘an application for a respect order may be made without notice being given to the respondent.’ You may have an order issued against you without you being present or even being aware of the order (this would be deemed an interim order). The order could prohibit you from speaking in public, posting online, going to particular places, and meeting certain people – in essence, whatever the court deems appropriate. Despite there being no crime, no trial, no jury you will function under the order of a court, and breach of that order will be punishable by a custodial sentence.
The bill is currently at the committee stage in the House of Commons, after which it will go to the House of Lords and subsequently receive royal assent. While there are much needed provisions in it, the Respect Order element feels like a catch-all piece of legislation purposefully lacking in specificity, that could provide an amoral government the legal power to further curtail public dissent.
Footnote:
In January 2024, UN Special Rapporteur, Michel Forst, issued a stark warning about how the UK Government was clamping down on protest rights.
In July 2024, Amnesty International called on the UK Government to urgently rethink its approach to protest and freedom of expression.
©2025 Sul Nowroz – Real Media staff writer – Insta: @theafghanwriter
