Liberty urges council to clarify 'foul and abusive language' prohibition
Human rights group Liberty has written to Salford City Council claiming that a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) the authority has implemented risks having a chilling effect on freedom of expression because it criminalises the use of all “foul and abusive language”.
Salford introduced the PSPO for the Salford Quays area in August 2015, using the Anti-Social Behaviour ,Crime and Policing Act 2014. (Information on the order can be found here)
Liberty argued that the council had created a “vaguely-worded” criminal offence but failed to give any guidance on which words would be considered “foul and abusive” enough to constitute such an offence.
A letter from Liberty’s Legal Officer Rosie Brighouse to City Director Jim Taylor calls for clarification on the approach council officers – and other empowered to enforce the PSPO – would take on a number of issues:
“1. Does the language have to be both foul and abusive to breach the PSPO, or is its purpose to ban both language that is foul but not abusive, and language that is abusive but not foul?
2. What is the difference between language that is foul and language that is abusive?
3. What legal test will be applied to determine whether language is foul and/or abusive?
4. If someone uses foul and/or abusive language in the area covered by the PSPO, but there is no one present to hear it, will that amount to a criminal offence?”
Brighouse said: “This is a staggering example of the misuse of a Public Space Protection Order – so vaguely worded it’s impossible for anybody to know whether they’re in danger of breaking the law.
“The right to say what we want should not be restricted at the whim of council officials, able to issue fixed penalty notices on the basis of a poorly defined legal order. Without the freedom to offend, real freedom of expression cannot exist.”
Liberty said it was working on the issue with comedian and activist Mark Thomas, who is performing at the Lowry theatre in Salford next week.
According to the human rights group, Thomas “intends to encourage his audience to join him in a number of artistic and political activities after the show in the area outside. Mr Thomas is concerned that he is unable to predict whether he or any audience member will be in breach of the PSPO – and therefore committing a criminal offence – by participating in his planned activities.”
Liberty added that it understood that Thomas had prepared a list of words which he might wish to use and which he intended to send to the council to seek specific guidance on whether or not they would breach the PSPO.
The group has previously sought to intervene in a number of cases where councils have introduced or proposed introducing PSPOs.
A spokesman for Salford City Council said: “We will discuss Liberty’s concerns privately with them and make sure nothing interferes with Mr Thomas’s artistic performance.
“Liberty are fully aware that breach of a PSPO is only an offence if a person does a prohibited act without a reasonable excuse. That allows all the circumstances to be taken into account.
“I appreciate Liberty want publicity for their campaign against these orders but Salford City Council is not going to apologise for using national legislation to help Salford residents when their lives are being made a misery by anti-social behaviour.”
The spokesman added: “This order was introduced last summer after complaints from local residents about anti-social behaviour, including people throwing wheelie bins into the Quays and tampering with emergency life saving equipment.
“Over 130 local residents responded to the consultation about whether to introduce this order. Of those 76% were in favour of the order and 94% agreed with a ban on causing general disturbance including being abusive to other persons, using foul language, being rowdy and inconsiderate.”
Anyone caught breaching any of the prohibitions in the PSPO faces a fixed penalty notice of £90 (£60 if paid within 10 working days) or summons to court with a maximum penalty if convicted of a £1000 fine.
