Two snippets or fuzzy thinking by the Police:

1. After 11 years of peaceful Critical Mass in Central London, last Friday the Police distributed a leaflet, warning

Organisers of public processions are required by law to notify police at least 6 days before the event occurs of the date, time, proposed route and the name and address of an organiser. Failure to do so makes the event unlawful.

Demonstrations within a designated area around Parliament must also be notified, and anyone taking part in an unauthorised demonstration commits an offence.

Police can impose conditions on processions, demonstrations and other assemblies, and participants render themselves liable to arrest if they fail to comply with those conditions.

These cycle protests are not lawful because no organiser has provided police the with the necessary notification. Your participation in this event could render you liable to prosecution. Police policy in facilitating these events is currently under review.

Many commentators with a minimum of knowledge in civil liberties have pointed out that the text is a legal colander. For instance:

If the Met class CM as a ‘procession’(which can be a motorcade or funeral cortege – so by analogy, CM comes within this definition, rather than a static assembly to which s.14 POA 1986 applies) then they will try to use s.11(1) Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions in advance of the ride. However, there is a problem for the police, who claim that a ‘change of policy’has led to the threat to use the POA. (e.g. a reluctance to pay for escorting officers on bikes, rather than any serious concerns about disorder?).
It is that s.11(1)POA 1986 has no application under s.11(2) where the procession is ‘one commonly or customarily held in the police area/s in which it is proposed’. It is arguable that CM’s history of regular rides every month at the same time for 11 years makes it a ‘commonly…held [procession]‘and thus the Met cannot use s.11(1).
If they do, as was used against the fuel protestors on the M4 recently, (not a commonly held procession), then they are acting outside the powers of the POA – ultra vires -and, in my view, the decision to impose such conditions would be judicially reviewable on that ground and possibly for breach of Article 10 and 11 of the ECHR. A prohibitory injunction could be sought to prevent the use of s.11(1) if the police announce they intend to use it.

2. This summer the Police conducted a successful raid on a number of thieves who were selling bikes, mostly Bromptons, on e-Bay. Well done! They retrieved several bikes. However, they did not have a plan for dealing with the bikes that had already been sold. Not surprisingly, many of the victims are not impressed that the Police is not helping them getting their bikes back. The Police is saying: “We know your bike was stolen; we know who has bought it from the thieves; but we are not telling you and neither are we going to seize the bike”. Again legal minds say that it is a very peculiar interpretation of current law by the Police.
Anyway, why don’t they have a system where on-line sellers of bicycles are required to post the frame number and a link to the national database of stolen bicycles?
The image is a detail of a mural by Mona Caron