Instance justice gonna get you
What about all this talk of ‘instant justice‘ then? It’s a lovingly crafted phrase loaded with meaning. Swift but fair. Efficient and balanced.
It’s judgement without a judge, a verdict without a jury. What they actually mean is ’summary punishment’. Which would probably play better to the hang ‘em/flog ‘em brigade but less so to fretful liberals.
Like all these measures brought in so that the police/governement/security services can be seen to be Doing Something, though, it’s to be wondered if this one might also have a dual use. Remember the terrorism laws being used to supress protest? This ‘instant justice’ could be used in a similar way. It’s a quick and easy way of having exclusion zones wherever the police want them.
Is a policeman, for instance, going to refuse the request of an MP who thinks protesters persistently gathering outside his constituency office present ‘a nuisance’? I’m thinking of the likes of ex-Hove MP and defence minister Ivor Caplin whose surgeries were regularly picketed by anti-war protesters. Ivor had quite a low opinion of protesters.
The police could ban protesters from gathering in the same place for up to three months under the plans. There’s your right of assembly under threat right there. What about at an arms fair? Anti-war demo? Or pro-hunting demo or anti-wind farm demo, if you prefer. It’s another of them there slippery slopes we’re always careering down.
Whether you - drunk, protester or bystander - are going to get ‘justice’, instant or not, will depend very much on the individual copper charged with dishing it out. Would you be comfortable with a policeman like Keith Empsall or Gary Waddoups (who had their own brands of ‘instant justice‘) using such powers?
You could do away with the ludicrous and controversial arrests under the terrorism legislation and label all unwanted protest as anti-social behaviour. No more embarrassing questions about the misuse of legislation - you can smear protesters as yobs and thugs causing a nuisance to ‘ordinary and decent’ citizens.
Even an entity as bovine as the great British public has refused to buy protesters as terrorists. Rhetorically stick a burberry cap on the same protesters and metaphorically hand them a Bacardi Breezer, however, and it’s a far easier pitch altogether.
Posted on August 16th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Being a rather assertive person, would feel rude indeed if some policeman was given the power to arrest me for ‘looking at him in the wrong tone of voice’ or ‘remonstrating’ or verbally defending myself from injustice. We have all had unfair parking tickets etc. It will be some sea-change if we can now end up being arrested if the copper feels we need a little lesson. No charges would probably stick on you but they could certainly cause you a lot of pain and wasted time. Will leave you to consider whether there are any police out there who would be so unfair.
“Instant Justice” being a lot like “Instant coffee”. Much like the real thing in many ways, yet leaves a nasty taste in mouth.
On the spot fines are nothing new, but you can’t curtail someone’s liberties without at least a nod at due process. The scope for abuse is too high, as you say. Mostly it doesn’t seem well thought out, though. How do you ban someone from a town centre? I believe policemen don’t patrol their own neighbourhoods, as a rule, so how does this ‘neighbourhood constable’ thing work?
Stop and search based on previous convictions? Bang goes any pretence at rehab. Guilty once, guilty forever.
Lip-smackin’.
Arbitrary power, but a diffused, non-political, professionalised, subsidiarised, localised, participatory and opportunity-rich arbitrary power, in the hands not a few but comparatively many -lovely…
I couldn’t find anything about this on the ACPO website but did see yesterday’s “Memorandum of Understanding” between ACPO and the NHS Security Management which includes an agreement between them to bring pressure on the courts and the CPS to ensure that offenders in respect of assaults in hospital receive severer sentences. This strikes me at first glance as extraordinary, trenching upon the independence of the courts and the prosecution service, etc. and also more extraordianary and potentially counterproductive for being published.
I read the Guardian piece on Keith Empsall you linked to. It contains the paragraph…
Empsall had a 24-year unblemished career record within West Yorkshire police. His position within the force will be considered following the outcome of the appeal.
One wonders if that means he really was a paragon of decency and justice for 24 years, or simply that he’s been fortunate none of the previous occasions on which he beat up people were secretly filmed from a window across the street.
Yikes.
When I first read the BBC article earlier today, it made my heckles rise somewhat simply because I’ve been worried ever since I heard Blair’s call for ‘new summary powers’ a while ago. I didn’t make the jump to how this ‘could’ be used against protestors - which give the ‘use’ of the Serious Organised Crime Act, and Terrorism Act, shouldn’t have been a big jump.
A few years ago I’d have shrugged it off as being something that would be laughed out of Parliament. These days, civil rights/liberties seem to be coming under a sustained assault - I’m starting to seriously wonder how long before the dam bursts.