Assaults bill backed

4 May 2018

Leicestershire Police Federation chair Tiff Lynch has welcomed the progress with the assaults bill which has now passed through its third reading in the House of Commons with cross-party support.

But Tiff has expressed concern and disappointment that some of the proposals originally included in the bill have been watered down by the amendments made on the way.

“Of course, we are pleased that the bill is continuing to get support from MPs of all parties who have taken on board the Federation’s nationwide Protect the Protectors campaign which highlights the number of assaults on police officers and also the often lenient sentences handed down to those who attack the police,” says Tiff.

“But I really hope this doesn’t become a missed opportunity to give police officers and other emergency service workers the protection they deserve. It is important that this legislation has an impact.”

Rhondda Labour MP Chris Bryant has championed the Assaults on Emergency Services (Offences) Bill and was among the MPs to take part in last Friday’s third reading debate. He and others made specific reference to the issue of assaults involving spitting.

He told MPs: “By introducing a new offence of common assault or battery on an emergency worker, including all the emergency workers who are later defined in the bill, we have effectively tried to bring that concept of common assault or battery from the Criminal Justice Act to apply to all spitting at emergency workers.

“The problem is that, as the statute does not expressly define spitting as being part of the offence of common assault or battery, there is anxiety in some circles that prosecuting authorities do not take the matter very seriously.

“The truth is that there is a growing incidence of spitting at emergency workers.”

Leicestershire Police has now issued all front-line officers with spit guards and Tiff is keen to see spitting covered by the new bill. But she is disappointed that calls for tougher sentencing may not come to fruition.

After amendments were made, the bill gives police added protection when it comes to sexual assault but the maximum term for common assault remains at 12 months rather than the 24 months that had been proposed.

The Federation’s national chair Calum Macleod has explained: “Magistrates do not have 12 months sentencing powers for one offence, therefore six months is the maximum we can expect at the moment. 

“Offenders are being under-charged and prosecuted for a lesser offence. This is the reality and this is why police officers will continue to feel under-valued with criminals laughing in the face of justice.”

While a number of MPs spoke during Friday’s debate, the Conservative MP for Mid-Worcestershire, Nigel Huddleston, perhaps best summed it up: “I want to say in conclusion that it is my hope and that of many others in this House that the passage of the bill will send a clear message to emergency service workers about how deeply they are valued, and provide some reassurance that they do not need to tolerate abuse and assault while carrying out their duties.

“I hope too that the bill’s passage will send a message to the public that emergency service workers are protected by legislation and that those who are violent towards them will face the full force of the law.”

His North Warwickshire colleague Craig Tracey said: “I am sure that we all agree that assault on anyone in any situation is awful, but to attack someone who is trying to help another person in an emergency is callous, heinous and totally unacceptable.

“Punishment for such assaults on emergency workers should fit the crime, and I believe that it is right and fair to give a judge the ability to take them into consideration as an aggravating factor in determining a sentence.​”