| Act of Parliament | |
.svg) | |
| Long title | An Act to make further provision in relation to criminal justice (including employment in the prison service); to amend or extend the criminal law and powers for preventing crime and enforcing that law; to amend the Video Recordings Act 1984; and for purposes connected with those purposes. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1994 c. 33 |
| Introduced by | Michael Howard |
| Territorial extent | England & Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 3 November 1994 |
| Commencement | Multiple dates |
| Other legislation | |
| Amends | Habeas Corpus Act 1679 |
| Amended by | Crime and Disorder Act 1998 |
Status: Amended | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Text of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, fromlegislation.gov.uk. | |
TheCriminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is anAct of theParliament of the United Kingdom. It introduced a number of changes to the law, most notably in the restriction and reduction of existing rights, clamping down on unlicensedrave parties, and greater penalties for certain "anti-social" behaviours. The Bill was introduced byMichael Howard,Home Secretary ofPrime MinisterJohn Major'sConservative government, and attracted widespread opposition.
A primary motivation for the act was to curb illegalraves andfree parties, especially thetraveller festival circuit, which was steadily growing in the early 1990s, culminating in the 1992Castlemorton Common Festival.[1] Following debates in theHouse of Commons in its aftermath,[2] Prime MinisterJohn Major alluded to a future clampdown with thenHome SecretaryKen Clarke at that year'sConservative Party conference.[3] At the 1993 conference,Michael Howard, who had becomeHome Secretary, announced details of the new Criminal Justice Bill.[4]
Despite protests and discord against the bill, the oppositionLabour Party took an official line to abstain at the third reading,[5] and the Act passed into law on 3 November 1994.
Key measures of the act that received public attention included:
63(1)(b) "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.
Whilst the legislation was still under debate, the groups Advance Party and Freedom Network coordinated a campaign of resistance. The group was composed of an alliance ofsound systems andcivil liberties groups.[13] A movement against the bill grew across "the overlapping squatting, road protest and free party scenes".[2]
Threedemonstrations were organised in London throughout 1994. The first of these took place on 1 May (May Day), with an estimated 20,000 people taking part in a march starting atHyde Park and finishing atTrafalgar Square.[2] The second, on 24 July, followed the same route with numbers estimated between 20,000 and 50,000.[14][15] The larger turnout was partly attributed to a mobilisation from theSocialist Workers Party and with them placards reading "Kill the Bill", but it also created a degree of "political tension" with the other founding groups.[2][16]
The third demonstration was called on 9 October,[15][2] with police estimating 20,000 to 30,000 people attending, while organisers put the figure at over 100,000. The day ended in ariot in Hyde Park that continued into the evening.[17] Accounts stated that, around 5 pm, a confrontation occurred between protesters and police when protesters attempted to bring two sound systems into the park. With such a large number of protesters, the police were overpowered and backed off. Riot andmounted police reinforcements arrived shortly afterwards, and reportedly charged at protesters in an attempt to disperse the estimated 1,500-person crowd.[18]
The civil liberties groupLiberty opposed many of the measures proposed by the act at the time, regarding them as "wrong in principle and likely to violate theEuropean Convention on Human Rights".[19]
Jon Savage, author of books on youth culture, said of the legislation in Bill form, "It's about politicians making laws on the basis of judging people's lifestyles, and that's no way to make laws".[20]George Monbiot described it as "crude, ill-drafted and repressive".[21] The Act was described by Professor ofCultural Studies Jeremy Gilbert as a "piece of legislation which was "explicitly aimed at suppressing the activities of certain strands of alternative culture", the main targets beingsquatting,direct action,football fan culture,hunt sabotage and thefree party.[22]
The sections which specifically refer to parties or raves were, according to Professor of Sociology Nigel South, "badly defined and drafted" in an atmosphere ofmoral panic following theCastlemorton Common Festival.[23][24] The law's attempt to define music in terms of "repetitive beats" was described as "bizarre" by Professor of Law Robert Lee.[1]
Reflecting on the time, the journalist Ally Fogg wrote inThe Guardian:
Few listened to our warnings then. After all, we were just a bunch of social outcasts with silly hats and questionable personal hygiene. Beyond some welcome support from Liberty and a handful of progressive trades unions, we stood pretty much alone against the whole political and media establishment. This most draconian and illiberal of Conservative laws could only eventually pass through parliament because a young shadow home secretary shocked almost everyone by deciding not to oppose the bill at the final reading. At the time it was assumed that he decided to let the bill through so as not to look soft on crime, or hand a propaganda victory to the Tories. In doing so, he sacrificed several cornerstones of British civil liberties on the altar of political expediency. His name? Tony Blair.Fifteen years on, there is little pleasure to be gained from saying "we told you so". But the manner in which a law designed to prevent the wholesale mayhem of Castlemorton can now be used to foreclose a birthday party should serve as a stark warning to those currently considering a raft of other illiberal legislation, from the coroners and justice bill to the various ID card proposals. Those who deride the contributors to liberty central when they warn about the incessant creep of police powers, or who scoff at "slippery slope" arguments around civil liberties, should bear in mind that we stood at the top of one of those slopes only 15 short years ago, and we have slid a long way down it since.[25]
The BritishIDM duoAutechre released the three-trackAnti EP in support of the advocacy groupLiberty. The EP contained "Flutter", a song composed to contravene the definition of music in the Act as "repetitive beats" by using 65 distinctive drum patterns. The EP bore a warning advising DJs to "have a lawyer and a musicologist present at all times to confirm the non-repetitive nature of the music in the event of police harassment".[26]
The fifth mix on the Internal version ofOrbital'sAre We Here? EP was titled "Criminal Justice Bill?". It consisted of approximately four minutes of silence. In their 1995 trackSad But New, Orbital incorporated samples fromJohn Major's 1992 conference speech.[27]
"Their Law", a song by electronic dance actsthe Prodigy andPop Will Eat Itself, was written as a direct response to the bill.[28] A quotation in the booklet of the Prodigy's 1994 albumMusic for the Jilted Generation read "How can the government stop young people having a good time? Fight this bollocks." The album featured a drawing commissioned by the band fromLes Edwards depicting a young male rebel figure protecting a rave from an impending attack of riot police.[29]
In 1993, the bandDreadzone released a single, "Fight the Power", in opposition to the proposed Criminal Justice Bill, featuring samples fromNoam Chomsky discussing taking action and "taking control of your lives", advocating political resistance to the proposed bill.[30] The track also features on a 1994 compilationTaking Liberties, released to raise funds to fight the bill. The B-side toZion Train's 1995 "Dance of Life" single included a track entitled "Resist the Criminal Justice Act".
TheSix6 Records compilation albumNRB:58 No Repetitive Beats (1994) was released in opposition to the proposed Bill. The album's liner notes said:
For every copy ofNo Repetitive Beats sold Network will pay a royalty to D.I.Y. / All Systems No! (an advance payment of £3,000 was made before the release of the album). The monies will be used by D.I.Y. / All Systems No! towards the cost of a sound system which will be on hand to replace any sound equipment seized by the police using draconian powers granted to them by the Criminal Justice Bill to stop music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats". The Bill is unjust and tramples across common sense and civil rights. If you want to help throw the CJB out contact the human rights organisation Liberty. Fight for your right to party.[31]
