Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 16
16
Accepted
We agree that the police should be able to take action against individuals using masks...
Conclusion
We agree that the police should be able to take action against individuals using masks to intimidate others and to evade arrest. However, there may be legitimate reasons for actions that conceal identity at a protest. It is important that the law does not disproportionately interfere with human rights, including the right to engage in peaceful protest. (Conclusion, Paragraph 109)
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the importance of balancing public safety with the right to protest, and states that current Bill provisions for concealing identity at protests already include safeguards and defences for legitimate reasons, ensuring the measure does not disproportionately interfere with human rights.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
The Government is committed to protecting public safety and preventing disorder and crime whilst balancing the right to peacefully protest. Under the provisions in clauses 118 to 120 of the Bill, the police can only designate a locality for the purposes of the offence of concealing identity at protests where a senior officer reasonably believes that a protest is or may take place in the locality, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and it is expedient in order to prevent or limit offences being committed to designate the locality. The measure includes a defence for individuals charged with this new offence if they prove they wore or used the item for a purpose related to health, religious observance or relating to the person’s work. As such, a locality will only be designated where criminality has or is likely to take place, and under this new measure, the police will be expected to take action only against persons who are wearing or using items to conceal their identity at protests in a designated locality, without a legitimate purpose. Given these safeguards, the Government is satisfied that this measure does not disproportionately interfere with individuals’ human rights.