Review of public order tactics

Report: 10
Date: 7 October 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

A report outlining a review of public order tactics, including the use of water.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report

B. Supporting information

1. London witnesses over 4,000 events each year many of which take the form of protests and demonstrations either as marches or rallies. Since its inception, the Metropolitan Police Service has facilitated lawful protest and has an enviable position throughout the world in its handling of protest and demonstrations. This reflects the long established values and traditions of London and the wider UK including the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, which were enshrined in the Human Rights Act. A key area of this success is the co-operation, which is fostered with the event organisers before and during the event.

2. There are occasions however, even when there has been a good relationship with the organisers, when protest does not remain lawful. This can range from civil disobedience, such as a sit down, to violence against property and/or people. In the case of the latter the violence can be directed to other members of the public, e.g. those holding opposite views to the perpetrators such as right and left wing extremists, or towards police. In the main tactics to deal with violence tend to be interventionist. This is partly a reflection of the policing style that would have been present before the violence erupted and partly due to the duty of police to prevent crime and a breach of the peace. Sometimes the only tactic, which can be used, the use of force and ‘hand to hand combat’ with violent protestors, inevitably leads to injuries to both police officers and protestors and allegations of excessive use of force by police. Other tactics such as containment using physical barriers and/or public order vehicles can be used but in reality are difficult to implement and in themselves do not necessarily abate the violence.

3. Public order tactics are under constant review particularly following an event involving disorder or an external influence e.g. the implementation of the Human Rights Act. The initial debrief following the Countryside Alliance demonstration in September 2004 led to some minor changes but a more in depth examination began earlier this year into tactics other than direct contact with protestors, which could be used when faced with a violent crowd where the focus of the violence is the police. The aim is to create a ‘defensible space’ between the crowd and police thereby preventing police officers, as far as possible, having to use force to deal with the violence.

4. There are number of methods by which this defensible space could be created and will be examined in the report. One tactic is the use of water cannon. The MPS has in the past, following the disorder in 1981, owned water cannons. They were seen at the time as an extreme use of force and as an alternative to other tactics such as baton rounds. However, they were rejected due difficulties in deployment and were never used.

5. Following the Patton Report into the policing in Northern Ireland water cannons were introduced as a tactical option and since their purchase have been deployed. Following the purchase of the water cannons by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) the MPS has been examining the suitability of the water cannon being a tactical option in London and have been in discussions with colleagues in the PSNI. This began before the events in September 2004 and was originally a stand alone project but the findings will be incorporated into the review. As part of this project one of the PSNI water cannons was demonstrated at the MPS Specialist Training Centre, Gravesend last month.

6. The water cannon used by the PSNI is significantly different to those of the 1980s. The main difference is the degree of control on the force of the water. Whilst it is still possible for the cannon to issue a powerful jet it is much more likely to be used as spray or fine mist. The objective is to make the environment physically uncomfortable but not dangerous for the protestors to continue with their violence. The level of force would actually be less than that of a strike by a police baton or asp. This control over the force of the water therefore leads to the potential of the water cannon being deployed as an alternative to police lines rather than as an alternative to the baton round. When effective it avoids the direct confrontation between police officers and protestors.

7. The review is due to be completed by the end of the year.

8. Discussions have been held with the Home Office on possible amendments to the Public Order Act so that violent crowds can be more effectively dealt with than the current legislation allows.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no race or equality implications arising from this report.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report at present, as this is a review. Any future reports would provide details of any financial implications.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: R. Mackie.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback