Don’t Panic

The riots and the rule of law.

After four days the riots seem now to have petered out. The disorder may happen again, perhaps this evening. We do not know. It is hard to predict civil disturbances, though few pundits are ever at a loss for why any riot happened, and how it can be stopped from happening again.

Indeed, partisan habits of thought are hard to break. Socio-economic determinists will always concentrate vaguely on the "underlying" causes, whilst the law-and-order brutalists will readily fantasise about calling out the army and deploying weaponry.

However, the emerging evidence does not seem to verify either determinist or brutalist approaches. Information on those being prosecuted indicates that the participants in the disorder came from a range of social and employment backgrounds. Some appear to have even been skilled responsible professionals. Similarly, the fact that the riots were ultimately dealt with by the police under their existing powers tends to undermine the latter-day General Jumbos who wanted to direct soldiers around our streets so as to police citizens.

Overall, the riots were sporadic and local. Almost every community in England was not affected. It may well be that, in terms of national crime figures, the riots will not even be that statistically significant, and that only a few hundred people were ever involved.

This is not to pretend the blatant and vile lawlessness did not take place; it is just that there is an awful lot of crime which takes place away from the media glare. There will possibly be a shift in many urban areas in the psychology of residents; many people in London and other cities went to bed genuinely scared on Monday evening. And the fears of more civil disturbances will probably linger, especially the haunting sense that disorder is now not problem for other people. But an increased fear of crime does not necessarily mean more crimes are being committed.

The brutalists may be particularly disappointed that regular policing seemed to work. Some politicians seemed giddy with excitement at the prospect of having their electors fired at with actual or rubber bullets. Many clamoured breathlessly for the introduction of emergency measures and curfews. Even supposedly liberal politicians got caught up in this frenzy.

However, existing police public order powers were always sufficient to deal with the troubles. There are legitimate questions as to the overall allocation of resources and as to the tactics adopted by police commanders to begin with; but these are problems to be dealt with inside the current policing framework, and not a basis to casually bring the army in.

In all this, the principles of the rule of law and due process continue to be important. These principles mean that there is a settled legal basis for exercising coercive powers (such as arrest and prosecution) which respects the rights both of the individuals concerned - victim, apprehender, and culprit - and of the wider community. Civil disturbances may well test the rule of law and due process, but that is surely when such fundamental principles actually become more important. People should be properly and fairly prosecuted for the crimes they have committed during the riots.

The answer to lawlessness is not more lawlessness. To the contrary, the best response is to deal with what seems to be exceptional criminal activity in just the normal way; to keep calm, and carry on.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.