Public Order Management And Policing Strategies
1. Introduction
Public Order Management refers to the methods and legal frameworks used by the state to maintain peace, prevent riots, and control large gatherings, while balancing individual rights such as freedom of assembly and expression.
Policing strategies aim to:
Prevent disorder proactively
Protect vulnerable groups
Ensure proportional use of force
Uphold public confidence in law enforcement
Key tension: balancing security and civil liberties.
2. Key Legislation (UK Context)
Public Order Act 1986 – Governs violent protests, riots, and processions.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) – Sets rules for detention, searches, and policing powers.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Powers against trespass, raves, and disorderly conduct.
Police Reform Act 2002 – Community policing and crowd management strategies.
Human Rights Act 1998 – Ensures policing respects Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly).
3. Policing Strategies
Policing strategies in public order situations generally include:
Preventive policing – intelligence gathering, risk assessment, and advance planning.
Negotiation and mediation – communication with protest leaders to reduce conflict.
Proportional force – use of minimum force necessary.
Containment – cordoning areas to prevent escalation.
Crowd dispersal – using lawful tactics to disperse unlawful gatherings.
4. Key Case Law (Detailed Explanation)
Case 1: R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn (1968)
Facts:
Police sought to prevent a protest march that could escalate into disorder.
Legal Issue:
Whether police could impose restrictions preemptively without waiting for actual violence.
Decision:
Court held that preventive action is lawful if reasonably necessary to prevent disorder.
Significance:
Established principle of preventive policing
Balances liberty of assembly with public safety
Case 2: Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) – Operation Glencoe
Facts:
Police contained protesters in a cordon (“kettling”) during a G20 protest in London. Protesters argued this violated their rights.
Legal Issue:
Whether “kettling” violated Articles 5 and 11 of ECHR (liberty and assembly).
Decision:
House of Lords held the police action was lawful, provided it was:
Necessary
Proportionate
Temporary
Reasoning:
Kettling prevented disorder and risk of violence
Police exercised discretion reasonably
Significance:
Affirmed “kettling” as a legally recognized crowd management strategy
Highlighted need for strict proportionality and timing
Case 3: R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire (2006)
Facts:
Police stopped and turned back a coach of peaceful protesters heading to RAF Fairford.
Legal Issue:
Whether the preemptive stop was a violation of freedom of assembly.
Decision:
House of Lords ruled the police acted unlawfully.
Reasoning:
Intervention was preventive but unnecessary
No immediate threat existed
Proportionality principle violated
Significance:
Emphasized strict limits on preventive policing
Preemptive measures must be justified by imminent risk
Case 4: R v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, ex parte Watson (1999)
Facts:
Police allowed a procession of football fans, knowing some could incite violence.
Legal Issue:
Whether police can permit risky gatherings if conditions are controlled.
Decision:
Court ruled police did not act negligently as risk management measures were in place.
Significance:
Shows importance of risk assessment and strategic management
Police can allow events to proceed if disorder is mitigated effectively
Case 5: R (Moos v Commissioner of Police) (2010) – Use of Force
Facts:
Police used batons and shields to disperse protesters occupying private land during a climate change demonstration.
Legal Issue:
Whether the use of force violated Article 3 (freedom from degrading treatment) and Article 11 (assembly).
Decision:
Use of force was justified, given:
Protest was unlawful
Force was proportionate and carefully applied
Significance:
Reinforces principle of minimum necessary force
Supports use of graduated policing tactics
Case 6: R (DPP) v Jones (1999) – Right to Protest
Facts:
Farmers protested on a public road. Police wanted to remove them.
Legal Issue:
Whether peaceful protest on highways could be restricted.
Decision:
House of Lords held that peaceful protest is lawful, unless it obstructs public order.
Reasoning:
Balances freedom of expression and assembly with traffic/public safety
Police powers cannot override lawful peaceful protest
Significance:
Clarifies boundaries of lawful assembly
Limits overreach of policing powers
Case 7: R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police (2012) – Social Media & Public Order
Facts:
Police sought injunctions against online calls to gather and protest, fearing violent disorder.
Legal Issue:
Whether online mobilization could be restricted in advance.
Decision:
Court held restrictions must be proportionate and evidence-based.
Significance:
Modern public order policing extends to digital platforms
Preventive measures must respect freedom of expression online
5. Key Observations
Proportionality is central – police actions must match the risk.
Preventive policing is allowed but cannot override lawful assembly.
Kettling and containment are lawful if temporary and necessary.
Use of force must be graduated and minimal.
Digital protest management is increasingly relevant.
6. Conclusion
Public order management and policing strategies emphasize a balance between freedom of assembly and public safety. Case law shows:
Courts allow preventive and strategic policing when justified
Overreach or disproportionate measures are struck down
Principles of necessity, proportionality, and fairness guide policing decisions
RELATED Blog
comments