Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London
Southport riots, north-west England
The UK government's response to recent anti-immigration riots has drawn scrutiny for being swift and severe. And it did not just sanction the streets.
The riots erupted following a tragic knife attack at a children's dance workshop in Southport on July 29 - leaving three children dead. Misinformation yoked discontent, and protests spread across cities in the UK, with crowds attacking a mosque and asylum seeker housing.
Freshly elected, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer vowed swift justice. And he made it clear on the August 5, that "criminal law applies online as well as offline." By the end of that day, a dozen people had already been jailed.
Tana Adkin, chair of the Criminal Bar Association in England and Wales, observed that more resources had been allocated to fast-track these cases. Prosecution was quick, and those pleading guilty were sentenced on the same day. Courts were instructed to sit for 24 hours to maintain the turnover.
It is a sharp contrast to the existing delays on crown matters - those who plead not guilty face an 18-month wait for trial, according to Adkin.
The government's action certainly aims to deter any future disorder. At least 1,200 arrests have been made, with nearly 800 charges filed.
And sentences have been severe: a 28-year-old man received a 20-month prison term for posting messages on Facebook that encouraged attacks on asylum seeker housing in Leeds.
A 12-year-old boy, the youngest to appear in court, was given a 12-month referral order for participating in violent disorder outside a mosque in Southport. These largely centred around the Public Order Act 1986.
It also adds strain to the UK's criminal justice system, which has significant prison overcrowding. Thousands of inmates were controversially released early to make way for this new cohort of offenders.
Critics argue that this undermines the government's credibility in maintaining law and order.
The severity of these sentences is reminiscent of the government's reaction to the 2011 riots, for which more than 2,000 individuals were convicted. An analysis by the Ministry of Justice revealed that the average custodial sentence for riot-related cases in 2011 was more than double that of similar offences in 2010.
In 2021, a chief crown prosecutor from the time criticised the acceleration of procedure, including overnight hearings, for it blurred the distinction between organised criminals and first-time offenders.
What sets the response in 2024 apart is the growing policing of online speech. As misinformation and incitement over social media have been tied to the riots, authorities have turned their focus accordingly.
A 55-year-old woman was detained for sharing a tweet that falsely identified the Southport attacker, and many others faced similar repercussions for posting unverified claims suggesting the perpetrator was Muslim or a recent immigrant.
The link between speech and violence is well known. In Leviathan the philosopher Thomas Hobbes warned:
"For the actions of men proceed from their opinions, and in the well governing of opinions consisteth the well governing of men's actions in order to their peace and concord."
Hobbes: well governing of opinions - peace and concord
Today, governing opinions is a hard ask. Online, words are instant, unfiltered, and often anonymous.
And the law is always slow to catch up. In the UK, offences around incitement, provocation, and harassment predate the rise of social media.
The UK's Online Safety Act 2023 addresses new challenges by placing a duty of care on the providers of online services to monitor harmful or illegal content. Social media platforms could be liable for posts like those during the recent riots, with penalties of up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue.
The Act also introduces criminal offences, including false and threatening communications, which could potentially have applied to the false statements about the Southport suspect's identity.
Passed only last year, the Act was not in effect at the time of the riots.
In Australia, the Labor government had initially pledged to criminalise hate speech more broadly. Reneging on this, it instead expanded existing laws on incitement and threats.
The UK, like Australia, does not have a constitutional right to free speech.
While there is noticeable support for regulation of social media platforms, these companies have proven largely resistant. It is illustrated in the recently resolved stand-off between Brazil and Elon Musk's X platform.
In 2021, Google threatened to pull its services out of Australia when the government tried to intervene.
As in 2011, the government chooses speed and severity as the weapons against disorder. Critics are concerned for justice and free speech, especially as the government drives its prosecution further into the web.