Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Policing of funerals during the pandemic in Northern Ireland was difficult says HMIC review.

Date - 17th May 2021
By - Gary Mason

The PSNI’s legal services department couldn’t agree a definition of a funeral under the rapidly changing COVID-19 regulations ahead of Bobby Storey’s controversial burial it has emerged.

In clearing the force of blame the HMICFRS report into the event concluded that a combination of the sensitivities around policing major funerals in Northern Ireland and confusing regulations which changed 12 times were major factors in the force’s approach.

The inspectorate concluded that even if it will attract criticism to do so, “the PSNI must sometimes prioritise maintaining public order and protecting people from violence over strict enforcement of the law.”

The PSNI developed guidance to help officers police funerals during the pandemic but the Regulations didn’t define a funeral.

It wasn’t clear whether it would include a wake, a procession with the deceased’s body from one venue to another, or a gathering taking place immediately after a burial or cremation.

The HMIC concluded: “This made it extremely difficult to apply the law in funerals comprising several stages such as Mr Storey’s.”

In April 2020, the PSNI sought advice on the definition of funerals from its Legal Services Department and other sources. But this proved unhelpful because a definition couldn’t be agreed.

The funeral saw about 2,000 mourners line the streets in west Belfast last June  at a time when strict Covid-19 regulations were in place.

The HMIC review was launched after it was announced prosecutions could not be brought against 24 Sinn Fein politicians who attended the funeral. This prompted allegations of force bias in the way it had been policed.

The Gold Commander for the event told the Inspectorate it was clear that the stewarding wasn’t working as anticipated.

As the cortège travelled between St Agnes’s Church and Milltown Cemetery, an unexpected long procession formed behind. But it didn’t prompt the PSNI to change its Gold Strategy. The Gold Commander subsequently stated, on reflection, they had “no idea” what they could have done differently

The public order public safety adviser (POPSA; previously known as a public order tactical adviser) to the Silver Commander told the inspectorate the PSNI would only have intervened on the day in extreme circumstances. “Any intervention would have created significant risks of violence, public disorder and damage to community relations,” he said.

An experienced inspector who had worked in the community in different roles for many years and was reporting back to the Silver commander from a surveillance police vehicle on the day, told the Inspectorate there “was a sense that the police were being tolerated.”

They added:  “I knew it was the sort of gathering that any attempt on my part to stop and engage would not have gone down well. I was getting a clear picture from the steely looks I was getting”.

They explained that it was a tense situation and wasn’t one where police officers would engage with mourners to encourage and explain that they needed to comply with the Regulations.

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Matt Parr who led the review said: “The PSNI faced the complex challenge of policing a politically-sensitive funeral while also trying to interpret the confusing Covid-19 regulations.

“The service took a sensitive approach, and ultimately achieved what it set out to do – prioritising public security over compliance with the regulations.

“Due to the complex and frequently changing Covid-19 regulations, we are not confident that there was enough evidence to prove to a court that any of the attendees at Bobby Storey’s funeral had knowingly committed an offence – and we therefore agree with the decision not to prosecute.”

View On Police Oracle

[BlueBob + 692]

In days gone by and even rushed legislation was formatted correctly, there would have been a section for 'Interpretation' or 'definition' of every relevant words or phrase.  Oh those halcyon days that were😃

[Dave SYP + 2,961]

A very tense and sensitive situation. I am sure the Gold Commander and other senior officers on the day were working under extreme pressure, but I believe from what is reported that the right decisions were taken.  There are those who might say the law is the law, etc.  But we are decades on from the days when troops were on the streets and bombing and bullets were being dodged. Nobody, other than terrorists themselves wants to see a return to those days. A balanced and well thought out approach ensures everyone’s safety.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

19 hours ago, BlueBob said:

In days gone by and even rushed legislation was formatted correctly, there would have been a section for 'Interpretation' or 'definition' of every relevant words or phrase.  Oh those halcyon days that were😃

When was that then? I’ve not seen it in my 40 years of policing, and in the ten or years before I joined there was major legislation brought in to replace poorly worded older legislation that was clearly not well written and open to wide interpretation. 
Rose tinted spectacles? 

[BlueBob + 692]

39 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

When was that then? I’ve not seen it in my 40 years of policing, and in the ten or years before I joined there was major legislation brought in to replace poorly worded older legislation that was clearly not well written and open to wide interpretation. 
Rose tinted spectacles? 

Perhaps you need to get out more😃.  

So, good examples of sections with definitions / interpretations, how about Road Traffic Act'68 S108; C&U Regs S3; Vehicle Excise act S61/62.  Some,  like the Firearms Act,  include a definition within the sections such as S1(3) for the definition of a shotgun and so forth or perhaps the most well learnt ones ... Theft Act'68 S1 followed by S2-6 !  And by coincidence, they all are or were current and relevant with in the past 40yrs of policing.  
Out of interest, where or how did you think we can know if something comes under a shotgun certificate or a firearms certificate .... not because that's what you/I/others reckon or think is about right, but quite likely from legal definitions! Its just that few venture into the acts/regs to find them

oh, ooh, and perhaps my most quoted on this forum .. RV Lighting Regs - The Schedules (1-22) and S3.  
 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

2 hours ago, BlueBob said:

Perhaps you need to get out more😃.  

So, good examples of sections with definitions / interpretations, how about Road Traffic Act'68 S108; C&U Regs S3; Vehicle Excise act S61/62.  Some,  like the Firearms Act,  include a definition within the sections such as S1(3) for the definition of a shotgun and so forth or perhaps the most well learnt ones ... Theft Act'68 S1 followed by S2-6 !  And by coincidence, they all are or were current and relevant with in the past 40yrs of policing.  
Out of interest, where or how did you think we can know if something comes under a shotgun certificate or a firearms certificate .... not because that's what you/I/others reckon or think is about right, but quite likely from legal definitions! Its just that few venture into the acts/regs to find them

oh, ooh, and perhaps my most quoted on this forum .. RV Lighting Regs - The Schedules (1-22) and S3.  
 

What you have partially shown is that some things are easy to define - a shotgun or a light bulb - while other are much more complex - a funeral. 
Interesting that you use the 1968 Theft Act as an example of well written legislation. Written to simplify the complexities of the 1916 Larceny Act, with the stated cases that developed because of the interpretations of that Act over time. Probably more stated cases fell out of the new simplified Act than there was before. Within 10 years we had to have the 1978 Theft Act to cover the loopholes left by the 1968 Act - so not every word or phrase was adequately defined as you suggest. Similarly with the new legislation its lack of clarity in its definitions led to the 2006 Fraud Act. 
I’m not the one saying that writing legislation is easy - I’ve written small bits of policy that expand from 2 to 10 pages by the time everyone has had a ‘but what if...?’ review. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

3 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

When was that then? I’ve not seen it in my 40 years of policing, and in the ten or years before I joined there was major legislation brought in to replace poorly worded older legislation that was clearly not well written and open to wide interpretation. 
Rose tinted spectacles? 

Make up your mind please. Blue Bob just quoted fact which contradicted your comment.

[BlueBob + 692]

1 hour ago, Reasonable Man said:

What you have partially shown is that some things are easy to define - a shotgun or a light bulb - while other are much more complex - a funeral. 
Interesting that you use the 1968 Theft Act as an example of well written legislation. Written to simplify the complexities of the 1916 Larceny Act, with the stated cases that developed because of the interpretations of that Act over time. Probably more stated cases fell out of the new simplified Act than there was before. Within 10 years we had to have the 1978 Theft Act to cover the loopholes left by the 1968 Act - so not every word or phrase was adequately defined as you suggest. Similarly with the new legislation its lack of clarity in its definitions led to the 2006 Fraud Act. 
I’m not the one saying that writing legislation is easy - I’ve written small bits of policy that expand from 2 to 10 pages by the time everyone has had a ‘but what if...?’ review. 

Sorry to quote the long bits. I was simply highlighting the contrary view to your assertion about the absence of definitions/ interpretations.  Some of the definitions in those few examples are more than a lightbulb etc/ good examples being within the same ‘68 theft act you referred to snd actually they still stand some 50 yrs later🙈. 
however, it looks like we now agree they are present, albeit they do evolve.  Not sure what you point of position is now, but hey, that’s the joy of forums😎
 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Make up your mind please. Blue Bob just quoted fact which contradicted your comment.

Keep up. I’ve shown how the 1968 Theft Act was not well written because it was not clearly defined and we have had to have two further major pieces of primary legislation to close the loopholes. 
And just because someone debates with a contrary view to mine does not make it ‘fact’, it makes it another opinion. 

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

18 minutes ago, BlueBob said:

Sorry to quote the long bits. I was simply highlighting the contrary view to your assertion about the absence of definitions/ interpretations.  Some of the definitions in those few examples are more than a lightbulb etc/ good examples being within the same ‘68 theft act you referred to snd actually they still stand some 50 yrs later🙈. 
however, it looks like we now agree they are present, albeit they do evolve.  Not sure what you point of position is now, but hey, that’s the joy of forums😎
 

My point was that legislation was not well written with adequate definitions in days of yore. Some bits of the 1968 Theft Act still apply but with pages of interpretation added since. Just because some parts of an Act remain does not mean it was all good at the time. 
There will always be a mix of what is well written and easy to define and interpret and that which is not. Some of that is because some things are just easier to define than others. 
Lockdown legislation is a prime example, I defy anyone to come up with a definitive list of good reasons to leave their house during a lockdown, one that covers every eventuality, how many people can be involved in each activity, how long such things should last, how far someone can go while doing each thing etc etc.