Is There a Disparity Between the Way Different Protests are Policed in the UK?

While the policing of protests in theory should be an equal and proportionate response based on how disruptive a protest is, there are several factors that prevent this from materialising in practice, meaning there is a disparity between the way different protests are policed.

1) Media Publicity - In the age of social media as well as the agency of the press to choose what stories to pick up, only some protests will gain significant traction online. This has and continues to impact what the police will act on and the resources they put in to policing a protest. For example, when the Sarah Everard protests and vigil took place, due to the publicity and the government’s eagerness to clamp down on protests, these were dealt with in a much harsher manner than less publicised protests of a similar size.

The ambiguity of the law put in place by the previous government has ensured greater susceptibility to inconsistent policing

2) Court Sentencing - Judges’ rulings and the policing system remain controversial in the wake of protesters being given prison sentences. While a Just Stop Oil protester who blocked the M25 was sentenced to 5 years, many far-right rioters have faced more minor sentences for their part in the recent unrest, despite little to suggest that they committed more minor offences. For example, one man who helped instigate the violence in Middlesbrough, including racial abuse and looting, was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months. 

3) Where to Draw the Line? - Police are able to arrest protesters if they cause ‘disruption to the community’ but ensuring protesters are treated equally in this regard is difficult since disruption remains subjective. Ultimately, this means protests will inevitably be treated differently based on a number of factors such as the subjective views of the police officers present. While this is true about any policing, the ambiguity of the law put in place by the previous government has ensured greater susceptibility to inconsistent policing.

While policing cannot be consistent across the board because of the different nature of different protests, policing does remain fairly level where possible, bearing in mind the tools available. There may be a disparity but it is ultimately insignificant.

1) Law on Disruption - The recent policing bill set out how protests should be judged and when the police may need to step in with force. While the line for this is arguably blurry, once a protest reaches the point of putting other people in danger, police will step in. Whether this is blocking emergency services, threatening members of the public or using offensive language, this kind of disruption provides a consistent benchmark for when police will take action.

There are well-judged differences in response rather than disparities simply based on who is protesting

2) Response Meets Nature of Protest - Arguably, there is no true disparity as protests with a similar threat level will be treated similarly while those perceived to be more dangerous will be policed with greater force and resources. For example, the recent far-right riots were violent and abusive, meaning more resources were poured into policing them than more peaceful protests or marches of significantly smaller sizes. There are therefore well-judged differences in response rather than disparities simply based on who is protesting.

3) Legislative Changes - While some arguments compare policing of the past to policing now, legislative changes are often forgotten. This means a disparity in policing is not always to blame for the perceived disparity. Differences in the harshness of police crackdowns on protests can instead be attributed to shifting attitudes of the government over time.