Excessive force by police - you ain't seen nothing yet...

 

The world is still reeling from Saturday’s shocking images of women being held down by Metropolitan police officers as they attended a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Everard. There have been many calls for the resignation of the Chief Commissioner, Cressida Dick which misses a more significant and pressing issue.

These events provide a very disturbing backcloth to today’s debate in Parliament concerning the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021. This is a bill that threatens to massively restrict the right to lawful protest. It is one that has sneaked under the radar while we have been looking in other directions!

The Government’s own fact sheet make its intentions clear, they are to –

“Widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on static protests, to match existing police powers to impose conditions on marches”

This can include powers to impose start and end times. So, if a march or event goes over its allotted time, will police be able to repeat the scenes we saw on Saturday?

The new law with give the Home Secretary wider powers to control protest. Factors that might be taken into account include noise! Who will decide what level of noise is acceptable? At what point will noise reach a level that officers can wade in as they did in Clapham?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-factsheets/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-protest-powers-factsheet

The definition of ‘serious harm that might be caused by an event will be extended to include – ‘serious annoyance’. Annoyance to whom? Most protests are directed towards the government of the day. Presumably they will be ‘annoyed’ by some actions. In fact, the nature of protest is that someone will disagree and therefore be unhappy.  This could cover almost all events.

There will also be stricter rules concerning organisers’ knowledge of restrictions. The fact sheet says that organisers – “cover their ears” (presumably not because of the noise!). In other words  they claim to be unaware. The new rules will introduce a new concept of constructive knowledge i.e. that they should know.

This is a very disturbing interference with our right to free speech and to assembly.

We all have a rights under the European Convention on Human Rights including -

 Article 10 freedom of expression.

 Article 11 freedom of assembly and association.

These are not absolute rights. The gov't can limit those rights if it is in the public interest and proportionate. Whether these limits on our rights are in the public interest or proportionate is highly debatable and could lead to many more disturbing scenes.

We know already that the Home Secretary described the Black Lives Matters protests as dreadful –

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/12/priti-patel-hits-out-at-dreadful-black-lives-matters-protests

There now appears to be a backlash to prevent protest and to put wider powers in the hands of the Police. In the light of Saturday’s events is this the sort of society we want to be part of?

We all need to speak out about this. One thing we can all do is contact our MP and encourage them to vote against the bill at all stages. You can find your MP here –

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Thanks to Chris Topping at https://www.jacksonlees.co.uk/broudiejacksoncanter who has contributed to this post.

 

Rutnam rakes in bumper pay day from Priti Patel

My first guest blog post! Thoughts on the Philip Rutnam settlement from my friend and Employment Law Expert, Steve Pinder of  Stephen Pinder - Employment Law Matters 

Philip Rutnam resigned from his role as the senior civil servant in the Home Office raising allegations of bullying against his boss, Secretary of State Priti Patel. He alleged that there had been a vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign against him after trying to get Ms Patel to change her behaviour. There have been wider allegations raised against Ms Patel in relation to how other staff were treated, denied by her, and a report was published some weeks ago.

My interest has involved the specific circumstances involving Mr Rutnam and what happened after he resigned. It has been reported that he pursued an unfair dismissal claim against the Government, and this must have been a constructive dismissal case. The press reports this week referred to the case being settled for £340k and payment of costs. On both sides I expect that the costs are likely to be at least equivalent to the damages paid, meaning an outlay to the public purse of nearly £700k.

An unfair dismissal case only will lead to compensation of the lesser sum of a year of earnings or the statutory maximum, currently £88519, in addition to the equivalent of a statutory redundancy payment. How then might the award be £340k by agreement, with Mr Rutnam earning around £150k each year, no doubt plus pension. Further, the Employment Tribunal does not usually award costs, and my guess is that the deal reflects certain additional factors. On costs, I expect that the Home Office agreed such generous terms simply to kill the case and avoid a hearing in public which would have likely required Ms Patel and officials to give evidence on oath.

As regards the value of the case, again there may be a premium to reflect the value of closing out a deal. I also expect that this is not only an unfair dismissal case, despite the reports. In reporting allegations against Ms Patel during employment I expect that the claim raised allegations satisfying the requirements of a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act, namely the whistle blowing provisions. This can involve a claim pursued against an individual such as the Home Secretary and a claim for damages for injury to feelings. Compensation is uncapped, explaining the reference to £340k.

Whistle blowing is a useful addition to an unfair dismissal claim in the right circumstances and can enhance remedy in negotiations and at Tribunal. In this case the public have ended up paying a substantial sum to cover the actions of a senior Minister, and probably double with costs. It is fine denying allegations but it is easy to use someone else’s money to back out of defending your actions in a public forum.

Steve Pinder