For several days now there has been civil unrest on the streets of the UK.
Since last Monday's attack in Southport, there has been violent disorder on the streets of several UK cities including Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Stoke, Sunderland, Hull, Bristol and Belfast.
The national news has been awash with images of shops being looted, cars being torched, windows being smashed and the police being pelted with bricks.
The Government is said to be making plans to fast track offenders through the criminal justice system.
As I understand it, no-one has currently been charged with riot. For reasons that will become apparent, it is often quicker and easier to secure a conviction for violent disorder, which seems to be the current direction of travel.
In this article I give a brief overview of the offences of riot and violent disorder.
These are offences under sections 1 and 2 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Riot:
Section 1(1) of the Act defines riot in the following terms: "Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot."
The 12 or more do not need to use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously and their common purpose may be inferred from their conduct - e.g. if they are all participating in the same protest.
Furthermore, no person of reasonable firmness actually needs to be present at the scene. The offence is made out on the basis that if such a person were present they would fear for their personal safety.
The offence of riot can be committed in a private as well as a public place.
The maximum penalty for riot is 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.
Violent Disorder:
Violent disorder is very similar to riot, albeit with a smaller number of participants.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines violent disorder in the following terms: "Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder."
The 3 or more do not need to use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously. Unlike to offence of riot the 3 or more do not need a common purpose.
Furthermore, no person of reasonable firmness actually needs to be present at the scene. The offence is made out on the basis that if such a person were present they would fear for their personal safety.
The offence of violent disorder can be committed in a private as well as a public place.
The maximum penalty for violent disorder is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.
In relation to violent disorder, the Court of Appeal has held (R v NW [2010] Crim LR 723) that being "present together" does not require any degree of co-operation between those who are using or threatening unlawful violence. They just need to be present at the same place and same time.
2 comments:
What other difference is there between violent disorder and riot apart from the number involved.
Seems to me riot with its 10 year maximum might be more of a deterrent
In order to secure a conviction for riot, the prosecution need to prove that the 12 (or more) acted with a common purpose. Apparently this is not always straightforward to prove, so quite often they'll fall back on a charge of violent disorder instead.
Post a Comment