When the government passes legislation trampling on civil liberties it loves to insert - and crow about - "safeguards" which will supposedly prevent abuse. For example, when it passed the Gangs Act 2024, which enables the government to designate a group as a "gang", banning its insignia and enabling all sorts of additional search and harassment powers and other fuckery - the select committee responded to concerns that protest groups would be designated by inserting a clause stating that civil disobedience for the purpose of political activism did not qualify. They also responded to concerns that groups would be designated forever by inserting a clause requiring the list to be regularly reviewed:
To ensure that the list is regularly reviewed, we also recommend inserting clause 30(3A) and (3B). These would require the Minister to review the Schedule before making a recommendation to amend it, and every 5 years if no amendments were made.The government accepted these changes, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith saying in the bill's second reading debate:
To ensure that the list remains up to date, the police will review the entire list each time an addition or removal is considered, and every five years if no changes are made.The clauses were discussed in the bill's committee stage, where it was taken to mean that the minister must check that every gang on the list still meets the criteria, and remove any that do not.
So how much of a safeguard is this really? Earlier this year police minister Mark Mitchell designated two additional gangs. I was curious to see whether he had complied with his legal obligation to review the entire schedule, so I asked for the review. His response:
There is no standalone document specifically titled or formatted as my review of Schedule 2. The review was undertaken as part of the broader policy development process that informed the introduction of the Gangs Act 2024 and the subsequent Gangs (Identified Gangs) Order 2024. As such, there is no discrete document in scope of your request.So, he didn't need to do a review because he'd passed the law (including a list of gangs, 11 of which were outdated and removed by the select committee) just a few months earlier (unfortunately, that's not what the law actually says). Instead, the Minister pointed me at the police's advice and the relevant cabinet papers on the matter - which are interesting reading. The police's advice makes no mention of the need to review the schedule, and does not consider any gang other than those targeted for designation. As for the cabinet paper, it includes this:
I have reviewed the list of identified gangs in Schedule 2 as required under section 32(5) of the Act before making a recommendation to update the list.Given the (lack of) documentary record, I leave it for readers to judge whether Mitchell was being honest with his cabinet colleagues, or fulfilled his legal obligations under the Act.
Meanwhile, this shows the contempt the government - and the public servants who support them - have for safeguards for our civil liberties. And it shows why it is a fool's bargain to trust them.
