Observing A Disorder Is Now A Crime

[webbo3]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/judge-warns-people-observing-participating-132606752.html?

 

https://x.com/Towler/status/1822026542605549655

[THECORBYLOON]

"“Upon appearing to see police, he ran across the Holywood Road towards CS Lewis."

Why did he run if he believed he had done nothing wrong?

[sandyRoe]

^. You clearly don't know the PSNI

[THECORBYLOON]

Witnessing a crime as you happened to be walking down a street is hardly the same as making a conscious decision to be in an area where there's a riot happening, is it?

Given the risk of further disorder, bail was refused which does not appear unreasonable to me.

[THECORBYLOON]

Not living in Ulster, your statement is correct.

[bednobs]

isnt he just saying they'll be refused bail?  he's not saying they're guilty

[Old_Geezer]

You don't need to have made a conscious decision. You simply need to be observing to have the book thrown at you.

[THECORBYLOON]

He said he went there, “to have a look” and the judge referred to a, "curious observer" not just someone, "observing".

A "curious observer" implies a desire to see something as opposed to observing purely by accident.

The comment related to applications for bail and the judge made it clear that refusals would not be automatic.

[New Judge]

I wonder if the Learned Judge is familiar with the Bail Act. One would hope so. 

[THECORBYLOON]

Which Bail Act do you mean?

[Buenchico]

^^^ A good point, TCL. 

The Bail Act 1976 (which I suspect NJ is actually referring to) doesn't apply in Northern Ireland. 

It's the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 [as amended by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004] which is applicable there.

[Deskdiary]

11.57 - the one he knows more about than you.

[THECORBYLOON]

I thought he was referring to that Act as that was the only "Bail Act" I could see but since it doesn't apply in Ulster I assumed he meant another one.

[THECORBYLOON]

By the way, only a few Sections of the Public Order Act 1986 apply in Ulster and Section 1 isn't one of them.

I'm having issues accessing the Sections that do apply in Ulster to see if they're of any relevance but I'll keep trying.

[THECORBYLOON]

The only Section really is S.38  "Contamination of or interference with goods with intention of causing public alarm or anxiety, etc."

The other Sections applicable to Ulster are the ones giving the extent of the Act, the Commencement of the Act and the Short Title of the Act.

[Buenchico]

^^^ It's only s.38 of the Act ('Contamination of or interference with goods with intention of causing public alarm or anxiety, etc') which applies in NI.

Pedantic note:  'Ulster' is not synonymous with 'Northern Iteland', as three of that province's nine counties are within the Republic of Ireland.

[Buenchico]

^^^ Crossed posts!

[THECORBYLOON]

"Ulster" was good enough for the RUC and the UDR so I'll carry on using it.

I found out elsewhere, the minimum number of folk for a riot in Ulster is three.

[Old_Geezer]

But judge, I wasn't curious, I was horrified and froze at the scene.

 

We have mind readers now, apparently.

[THECORBYLOON]

OG, would a reasonable person think to themselves after two or three days' disturbance, "Och, I've nothing better to do, I'll just go along to see what the crack is"?

[New Judge]

“The Bail Act 1976 (which I suspect NJ is actually referring to) doesn't apply in Northern Ireland.”

Thanks Chris.

Whilst I was aware of that, due to the lateness of the hour (coupled with a number of infusions of various alcoholic beverages) I had not particularly registered “Belfast” in the report. No excuses, just a reason!

Bail in NI is a complicated affair and there have been various efforts to reform it over the years but none have succeeded. I think the crucial difference is that, unlike in the rest of the UK, nowhere is it stated that there is a statutory right to bail. But that said (and this was really my point) the decision whether to grant bail or remand in custody is a judicial decision which should be taken by a court with each case being decided on its individual merits. Despite there being no statuory provision, I believe that those decisions should begin with the presumption that bail is appropriate unless reasons to deny it are shown.

I have to admit I only read the headline of the Yahoo report (for reasons given above) and I assumed that the judge had made his pronouncement as simply as the headline stated. In fact that was not the case. But nonetheless, I find this statement from him disturbing:

“Anybody involving themselves in this type of behaviour, this type of disorder, be an active participant or a curious observer can expect to be, save for the most exceptional circumstances, remanded into custody…”

I find it disturbing for two reasons: firstly that the judge had taken it upon himself to make a pre-emptive decision on matters that are not before him so as to prejudice the bail applications of others in similar circumstances; and secondly that “curious observers” (for example, press and TV reporters?) are now likely not only to be arrested, but automatically remanded in custody by the courts.

I know NI has had its problems but there seems to be a very slippery slope being constructed here.