Vienna Convention and responses to disorder

Report: 9
Date: 26 September 2000
By: Commissioner

Summary

Following the MPS' grant at the High Court in May 2000 of declarations to the Free Tibet campaign arising from the President of China's state visit in October 1999, Nicholas Long (MPA, Independent) asked for an MPA debate on 'the Vienna Convention and the policing of marches, responses to disorder and proposals for change to MPS current arrangements'.

A report was considered by the Authority at its meeting on 28 July 2000, when it was resolved that a report on member involvement in the review process of the Vienna Convention issues should be put to the next meeting of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee.

This paper:

• describes the Vienna Convention/Free Tibet issues;
• outlines MPS actions in hand; and
• invites Member involvement in the review process of the State Visit of the President of China (18 to 21 October 1999).

A. Supporting information

The Vienna Convention and its main concerns

The Vienna Convention (on Diplomatic Relations and Optional Protocols 1961) was adopted into UK law by the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964. Its main concerns, in Articles 22 and 29, assert the 'inviolability of the premises of the [diplomatic] mission, and the inviolability of the person of a diplomatic agent'.

About the latter it says : "The receiving state shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity."

For the policing of 'ceremonial' occasions such as the Chinese state visit in October 1999, this agreement is given effect by 'security plans'. Security is a lot easier to define than dignity.

Security planning

Security is a vital part of the planning for ceremonial occasions, whether protest is anticipated or not. It includes protection from terrorist threat. The Security co-ordinator (known as SECCO) is a senior member of the event's command team; for the Chinese state visit it was a chief superintendent, reporting direct to the overall 'Gold' commander for the event.

He/she will work with those responsible for the 'personal protection operation' (ie: MPS Special Branch, MPS Royalty Protection, and MPS Special Escort Group) and execute a programme of searches and security maintenance measures. These may include (and did on this occasion) preparing positions for demonstrators which are within the sight and hearing of the visiting dignitary; and suggesting alternative routes should they choose to avoid protesters.

Preserving dignity

It could be said that the whole purpose of a public ceremonial event is to show that the state is sufficiently in control (by a combination of public consent and respect, allied to a deterrent show of force however low-key, e.g. unarmed police officers) to go about state business as planned, without disorderly intervention. Getting the President of China and HM Queen from Horse Guards Parade to Buckingham Palace was certainly not solely a transport operation.

The Gold commander's first three 'strategic aims' for the event (for the remainder, see paragraph 6.7 of document 3) were to:

• ensure the security of Her Majesty the Queen, the distinguished visitors and all participants on this state occasion;
• facilitate the arrival of all persons taking part in the ceremony;
• provide crowd control, ensure public safety and prevent disorder so as not to impair the dignity of the ceremonies.

This is a fairly typical statement of aims for such an event.

Gold for that event emphasised in his briefing that officers should not allow any demonstrator to confront the Chinese visitors or throw anything towards the visiting party. Concern had already been expressed by both British and Chinese governments about disruptive demonstrations, so for such an incident to occur would be very embarrassing. He reminded officers that unauthorised demonstrations are not permitted in Royal Parks (which includes Horseguards Parade and The Mall) under Parks regulations.

Tactical implementation

A tactical plan will be developed with the aim of delivering the strategic intention formulated by 'Gold'. However, within the context of a bespoke command structure the policing of such events at the point of contact with the public is of course conducted mainly by officers of constable, sergeant and inspector rank. The plan always aspires to be sensitive to the delicate constitutional, diplomatic and human rights matters discussed above.

It aids the security of the event, and is common practice (and reasonable) for officers at each location to come to interact with the crowd on a whole host of matters including where necessary the limits of acceptable behaviour within the terms of Gold's overall strategy. Discretion is a key factor and this may be marginally more tolerant or flexible than the letter of the regulations.

They must also decide how to respond if 'tact and good humour' fail, and the agreements are breached. If they have to use force, it must be proportionate. If it seems unlikely that agreements can be reached, or maintained without a use of force that may appear disproportionate, the option of re-routing the dignitary to by-pass the protests may in certain circumstances be considered. This in itself, though, may be a loss of dignity that undermines the purpose of the event by reducing the mutual respect and courtesy shown between the UK and the country represented.

Public opinion and the 'right to protest'

Regardless of the Vienna Convention, there is probably in general a public consensus to support and justify this approach to policing ceremonials (i.e. joint strategic aims of preserving security and dignity, as well as ensuring public safety, minimising disruption etc.). Clearly, some foreign regimes may be deemed more offensive than others, but media opinion may well be ahead of, or more extreme than, general public taste on this matter.

The right to protest, demonstrate or march is not generally held to be absolute. Articles 10 & 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to freedom of expression, and the right to peaceful assembly) can be 'qualified' by a public authority's 'legitimate aims' to prevent crime and disorder, or protect the rights and freedoms of others. The North Report (Review of Parades and Marches in Northern Ireland) took a similar view.

What the public (and government) can rightly expect is that the MPS will apply a consistent policy to all such events, i.e. if on one event there is a permitted 'reduction in dignity' by campaigners concertedly turning their backs on a royal procession (as for the State Visit of Emperor Akihito of Japan), or shouting and blowing whistles, but waving banners is not permitted; then for other events the same interpretation should be put on the Parks Regulations' prohibition on 'demonstration'. This the MPS aims to do.

15. It was not widely reported that the banners taken from demonstrators during the Chinese State Arrival were both pro- and anti-Jiang Zemin (and written in Chinese script). In this particular case it cannot then reasonably be said that police action was intended to suppress a particular point of view.

Members are invited to note the MPS Public Order Strategy 1998 - 2003 (background paper 1.) The MPS is reviewing the strategy and will re-launch a revised strategy after MPS realignment is completed in October 2000. The existing strategy launched in Autumn 1998 emphasised the importance of partnership in public order policing.

Assistant Commissioner Ian Johnston reiterated this (in a letter to Mr Long on 15 May) by affirming that he is " ... very interested in extending public involvement in [this] area of decision-making.." (the policing of future ceremonials and protests). He informed Mr Long that he had invited the Free Tibet Campaign to such a dialogue.

The MPS commitment to increasing public involvement will be an important part of the Public Order OCU's work in this planning year (to April 2001). Aim 3 of the OCU's Policing Plan (see Background Paper 2) is:

"To develop a climate of openness using lay involvement and partnership by expanding current practices to ensure opportunities for lay involvement in event planning, policy making and training."

More detail is provided in the plan. Note Objectives 1, 4, 5 & 7 which deal with:

• community visits and presentations;
• public information at the MPS web-site on forthcoming demonstrations;
• a community consultation procedure for event planning; and
• a system for ethical and diversity assurance.

One of the first products of this is in the area of public order training for senior officers ('strategic training'). The Independent Advisory Group (IAG) is supported by the MPS' CO24 Branch (Racial and Violent Crime) ; CO24, CO11 and IAG will be meeting shortly to agree terms for the IAG's participation in training, commencing with a course in October 2000 to train event commanders in the response to spontaneous disorder, as well as to consider other options for participation.

The MPS is also taking forward the six recommendations detailed on page 23 of Detective Supt. O'Connell's review of the Chinese State visit. One of these (in relation to officer safety tactics) is already complete. On the remainder, progress continues to be made. The MPS intends to organise a meeting in the Autumn to review the implementation of relevant action plans. The attendance of a representative from the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee at the review meeting would be welcome.

At the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority on 28 July 2000 it was resolved that members should be involved in the lay input to forthcoming major events. The MPS has provided details of forthcoming events and proposals for member involvement. The MPA Secretariat is co-ordinating responses from members regarding their interest in participation. During August arrangements were made for two members to witness the policing operation at public order events.

B. Recommendations

1. That the Committee considers the contents of the MPS Review report into the President of China's State Visit (18 to 21 October 1999).
2. That the Committee appoints a member to attend the MPS review meeting (date to be arranged).

C. Financial implications

There are no financial implications to these recommendations not already budgeted.

D. Review arrangements

Nicholas Long sought an MPA debate on the 'Vienna Convention and the policing of marches, responses to disorder and proposals for change to MPS current arrangements'. Discussion at the Authority meeting on 28th July 2000 was limited, due to the non-availability of background papers. It is anticipated that this matter may be referred to a future Authority meeting, after it has been considered by the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee.

E. Background papers

The following is a statutory list of background papers (under the Local Government Act 1972 S.100 D) which disclose facts or matters on which the report is based and which have been relied on to a material extent in preparing this report. They have been circulated to all Authority members.

• MPS Public Order Strategy 1998-2003 (published September 1998)
• MPS Public Order OCU Policing and Performance Plan 2000 / 2001
• MPS Review of President of China's State Visit 18- 21 October 1999. Prepared by Detective Superintendent Kevin O'Connell

F. Contact details

The author of this report is Chief Superintendent Stephen French, MPS Public Order OCU Commander.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback