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]

NJ, I'd be willing to bet that the press and TV reporters would fall under   "the most exceptional circumstances”.

[New Judge]

“NJ, I'd be willing to bet that the press and TV reporters would fall under   "the most exceptional circumstances”.”

Why? There is nothing remotely “exceptional” - let alone most exceptional - about press and TV being present at such incidents. In fact it would be exceptional if they were not.

"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"?"

But that isn't really the issue, Corby. People are entitled to wander around their local district if they wish without fear of arrest. I find it astonishing that a Judge Rafferty should suggest that "curious observers" face not only arrest, but almost automatic denial of bail. This also is of concern:

“Surely his presence at disorder involves him in disorder,” 

I would say "possibly" but not "surely". Whilst I accept that in NI, public order legislation is not identical to the rest of the UK, the principles (in terms of the elements required to support each particular charge) must be similar. Most of the people convicted and imprisoned for reasonably lengthy periods so far have been convicted of “Violent Disorder”. Among the CPS charging guidance for that offence it says this:

“ it must be proved that:

-    three or more persons present together
-    used or threatened unlawful violence
so that the conduct of them (taken together) would cause a person of reasonable firmness (had such a person been present at the scene) to fear for their own personal safety.”

How on Earth can somebody wandering down their High Street, coming across such disorder and taking some pictures on his mobile (i.e. a “curious observer”) be involved in that disorder? They should not run the risk of being scooped up by the police, denied police bail, stood up in court and (especially if they come before Judge Rafferty) be denied bail there as well.

The police must find another way of dealing with this problem that does not involve scooping up curious observers along with the miscreants. This is especially so if the courts take heed of Judge Rafferty and remand into custody people who just happen to be “curious observers”.

[vulcan42]

To take this to its logical, or perhaps that should be illogical, conclusion, If I slow down at a road traffic accident, do I immediately become a curious observer and liable to arrest?

[douglas9401]

I suppose it could all be a result of the rarified air that surrounds the ivory towers from where the great and the good look down upon us and, having identified an issue, pass judgement.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, " How on Earth can somebody wandering down their High Street, coming across such disorder and taking some pictures on his mobile (i.e. a “curious observer”)"

The man in question wasn't, "wandering down their High Street, coming across such disorder", he went there specifically to, "have a look" and the police described him as matching the description of a man described as being, "heavily involved" in the disruption.

[New Judge]

“The man in question wasn't, "wandering down their High Street, coming across such disorder", he went there specifically to, "have a look" and the police described him as matching the description of a man described as being, "heavily involved" in the disruption.”

You misunderstand, Corby. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

I wasn’t talking about any particular incident. I was commenting on Judge Rafferty’s general comments:

“Judge Rafferty said that someone’s presence, including a “curious observer”, at disorder involves them in such disorder as he refused two bail applications.”

I don’t see how a curious observer, such as I have described, can be “involved” in the disorder they are witnessing. I’m not familiar with the legislation governing bail decisions in NI (and from what I can gather, nor is anybody else). But I believe that, as elsewhere in the UK, the starting point for those accused of most offences is that bail should be allowed unless it can be shown that the defendant might abscond, commit further offences or interfere with the administration of justice (in particular, approach witnesses).

In E&W there would need to be some sort of evidence to support that. But it seems Judge Rafferty made his decision based on nothing other than there was widespread disorder. It may or may not be alleged that the defendant was involved in that disorder but apparently it's unnecessary to check as just being there is sufficient.

The issue of bail or remand in custody seems to be a big problem in NI. I have read that about 80% of prison committals and 40% of those in prison in NI are on remand and have not been convicted of any offence. I find that an astonishing figure but with pronouncements such as those uttered by Judge Raferty, I’m not surprised.

[fiveleaves]

Common sense should tell you to get away from a riot or public disorder asap. Hanging around as an onlooker could be interpreted as supporting the riot or encouraging the rioters from the sidelines

[Peter Pedant]

hi Vulky -   illogical, conclusion, If I slow down at a road traffic accident, do I immediately become a curious observer and liable to arrest?

so non-sequitur-y it makes me gasp with disbelief, but ho hum this  is AB on a sunday evg

no a road accident is not a crime

OK a murder? I am pretty sure the police can ask you to move on. jesus

what about stopping and gawking tho the netting of a military airport, then pictching a tent ?    no one was prosecuted for that were they? (Greenham)