Questions to the Authority

Report: 3
Date: 26 July 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

Members are requested, in accordance with the Authority's Standing Orders, to hear a question from members of the public relating to the policing of the May Day demonstration.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority hears questions from members of the public relating to the May Day demonstration and responds in accordance with Standing Orders.

B. Supporting information

1. Written notice was received by Clerk of the Authority from following people requesting to put to this meeting of the Authority questions relating to the policing of May Day demonstrations:

• Zena Awad
• Rhian Davies
• Robert Crowhurst
• Kieran Roberts
• Mick Gordon

2. A copy of the questions is given, see Appendix 1

3. Standing Orders 15 gives the process for receiving question at Authority meetings:

15. Questions from the Public

(1) Any member of the public may ask questions of the Police Authority which are relevant to its business. However, to allow an opportunity to obtain any information sought in order that a meaningful response may be given, written notice should be given to the Clerk to the Police Authority not less than 14 days before a meeting of the Authority.

(2) As soon as such questions are received, the appropriate officer(s) involved in responding should be given a copy and requested to prepare an answer. Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that questions are answered fully but concisely.

(3) Any question(s) shall be included on the agenda for the meeting, in the order of receipt, as the next item of business after the approval of the minutes of the last meeting, and must be addressed to the Chairman. The Chairman will then invite the appropriate officer or Member of the Authority to respond. All questions shall be put and answered without discussion. Arising from such questions if Members want a report, or an issue to be debated, then they must use existing procedures to ensure that at the following meeting the item is raised.

(4) With regard to those questions that involve the disclosure of exempt information, if part of the answer can be given in public, then that should be done. However, if that is not the case or the answer is clearly inadequate, then the questioner must be told that there will be no answer available and why, prior to the meeting, and the question will not be put on the agenda.

(5) The person asking the question shall be given the opportunity of attending the meeting to put the question, but if not present the answer as reported to the Authority shall be sent to such persons following the meeting. If the questioner is in attendance the appropriate officer and/or Member shall meet, him or her the questioner to discuss any further concerns he or she may have and to clarify any answer given, if necessary.

(6) The Chairman may use discretion to limit the number of questions asked by members of the public in order to avoid disruption of the business of the Police Authority. In any event the total time allowed for public question and answers shall not exceed 30 minutes. A maximum of three questions per person per year may be heard. Any questions that remain unanswered within the timescale shall receive written responses only.

C. Financial implications

There are no financial implications relating to this report.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

This author of this report is Nick Baker.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Questions from the public to the July 2001 MPA

The following responses are made on behalf of the MPA to the questions put by members of the public. Where relevant, they are based on information provided by the Metropolitan Police.

Response to questions from Zena Awad

Questions

1. Of those 23 arrested for possession of offensive weapons, bladed instruments and violence please give a breakdown of the exact resulting charges. For example if the charge is one of possession of offensive weapon please state the type of offensive weapon.

2. When you say 37 arrests were made in the immediate area please specify the exact location you are referring to.

3. Please give a breakdown of times that each of these arrest was made.

Response

1. The following charges resulted from the 23 arrests at Euston and Oxford Circus: two for possession of an offensive weapon - a martial arts weapon and a stolen police baton; nine for violent disorder; one for possession of a pointed article (a pair of secateurs); one for common assault; one for assault on police; and one for affray. Six people were bailed or failed to return. Two people were released without further action.

2. The arrests were made in Melton Road and Drummond Street, NW1; and in Oxford Street and Circus, Great Portland Street, Great Castle Street and Holles Street, W1.

3. The arrests were made between 1.15 p.m. and 9.10 p.m. The actual time of each arrest can only be established by looking at each individual file. I have not asked the MPS to undertake this time consuming task.

Response to questions from Rhian Davies

Question

1. What was the release policy of the Metropolitan Police to those being detained?

2. What discretionary powers did the police have to release individuals and, if there were any, what were the criteria for the discretion being used?

Response

1. A large number of people engaged in the May Day protest were contained in the Oxford Circus area under the powers available and the duty placed on the police at common law to prevent a breach of the peace.

The containment was kept under regular review and those held were informed by a variety of methods, including public address systems. Throughout the period of the containment officers tried, where possible, to identify and release those who were obviously not engaged in the protest. The containment action was considered necessary and proportionate in relation to the likely occurrences of violence and damage.

2. The police had discretion to decide that a person who was not obviously involved in the protest should be allowed to leave.

Response to questions from Robert Crowhurst

Questions

1. What was the policing strategy adopted for May 1st protests in London?

2. What specific powers were used to detain people?

3. What procedures were in place to identify those that were not causing or threatening a breach of the peace and allowing them to leave?

Response

1. The report by the Commissioner elsewhere on the agenda for this meeting sets out the strategic intentions and the tactical plan for the policing operation. A copy of this report will be sent to Mr Crowhurst.

2 and 3. People engaged in the Mayday protest were contained in the Oxford Circus area under the powers available and duty placed on the police at common law to prevent a breach of the peace. The Commissioner’s report explains why the officers in command of the policing operation considered that there were reasonable grounds to fear that the public would be subjected to violence and that there would be widespread damage to property if this action was not taken.

As stated in the response to the question from Ms Davies, the containment was kept under regular review. Throughout the period officers tried, where possible, to identify and release those who were obviously not engaged in the protest.

Response to questions from Kieran Roberts

Questions

1. How does the MPA propose to scrutinize the decision of the Metropolitan Police to adopt the tactic of prolong mass detention as it did on May 1st at Oxford Circus if the remit of the MPA does not allow consideration of the intelligence which formed the basis on which the Metropolitan Police adopted such tactics?

2. How can the MPA assess whether or not so called operational matters such as police tactics adopted on demonstrations are proportionate and necessary in a democratic society and therefore do not infringe Human Rights, if such matters are outside the remit of the MPA?

Response to questions 1 and 2

These issues were discussed quite fully when the Chair and other Members of the Authority met with some May Day demonstrators, including Mr Roberts, on 13 July. The note of this meeting is included in the public papers for this meeting of the Authority.

As the Chair emphasised at the meeting on 13 July, the MPA’s remit does not extend to involvement in specific operational issues, and these include an assessment of whether the tactics adopted for particular policing operation were founded on accurate intelligence.

It must be valid to consider whether the proportionality of any police response can be seen as reasonable compared to the problems that are thereby avoided. Ultimately, this is an issue that can only be settled through the courts.

However, whilst responsibility for operational policing matters rests with the Commissioner, this does not preclude the Authority or its Members from talking about such operations and from providing a platform to encourage the Metropolitan Police to talk more publicly about their approach. Indeed, this has been demonstrated by the Authority’s discussion, in public, of the May Day demonstrations at its previous meetings, its willingness to engage in a dialogue with representatives of the demonstrators and the facility for members of the public to put written questions to Authority meetings.

Response to questions from Mick Gordon

Questions

In response to the question from Ms Sam Diaz at the meeting of the Authority on 14 June 2001, it was stated that 37 arrests were made in the immediate area of Oxford Circus and Euston. Of these arrests please explain the following:

1. How may of these were later released without charge?

2. How many of those charged were arrested from within or on dispersal from the contained area of Euston and Oxford Circus?

3. Of the 23 arrested for possession of offensive weapons how many were later released without charge?

Response

1. Two people were later released without charge.

2. 30 were arrested in these two areas. The remainder were arrested in Holles Street.

3. The reply to Ms Diaz in fact stated that “23 of those arrests at Euston and Oxford Circus were for criminal offences relating to the possession of offensive weapons, bladed instruments and violence.” Of these two were released without further action being taken.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback