« Office of Government Commerce to appeal to the High Court against the Information Tribunal re Identity Cards Programme Gateway Reviews | Main | Home Office tries to shift our Tracer Gas Trials Environmental Information regulations request over to DEFRA »

House of Lords discloses a couple of Home Office SOCPA Section 128 Designated / Protected Sites signage documents

The House of Lords has disclosed, as per our FOIA request, a couple of Home Office documents which give a glimpse about the chronology of the meetings and decisions which led to the Designation of the Place of Westminster and Portcullis House (and Downing Street, Buckingham Palace, MI5, MI6, GCHQ, MOD etc. buildings) under the Serious organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

The emphasis on displaying adequate warning signs around the perimeters of Designated Sites, some of which which are now called Protected Sites (after the amendment brought in by Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2006) is interesting - the Home Office civil servants fear that the legislation will "be brought into disrepute by a failed prosecution", based on the statutory defence under "section 128(4) if a person can prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect the site in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed was a designated site".

This is currently very topical, since the first people, Obadiah Marius and Victoria Smith have now been arrested and charged under this Section 128, for apparently wandering into Downing Street via the unmarked 70 Whitehall entrance to the Cabinet Office.

Warning signs suitable for the perimeter fence of a nuclear power station on an isolated site, are not adequate for public buildings or otherwise unmarked official office buildings in the centre of London, an area with with millions of foreign tourists who may not read English well or at all. There are also many British people who cannot read or see such signs either.

The House of Lords disclosure consists of 4 photocopied items:

    Letter from the House of Lords Freedom of Information Officer.

    The FOIA disclosure was made via post which arrived on Tuesday 12th June 2007, exactly 20 working days (allowing for the May Public Holiday).

  1. March 2007 Letter from a senior Home Office civil servant to the Parliamentary Security Co-Ordinator

    "I know the policy is not a welcome one but it is one to which the Government has committed us and it will be difficult for us all if it is called into disrepute"

  2. March 2007 Email to Parliamentary Estates Division from the Policy Team Leader at the Home Office Central Unit, which concisely lays out the chronology of the meetings and decisions and the importance of adequate signage.

  3. July 2006 Appendix giving general policy advice about signs and section 128 - presumably this was sent to all the other Designated sites as well.

  4. The House of Lords wording used on their temporary / freestanding signs by their entrances to the House of Lords e.g. the Monarch's entrance.

We have censored some names, addresses, individual email addresses and direct telephone extensions in the transcriptions below:


Letter from the House of Lords Freedom of Information Officer.

Freedom of Information Officer House of Lords

[name]
[address]

11 June 2007

Dear Mr [XXX]

Request for information

Thank you for your email request, received on 14th May, for details of any correspondence, emails, minutes of meetings etc. between the House of Lords authorities and the House of Commons Commission, The Speaker of the Commons, the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police Service, Westminster Council or other public bodies, regarding the Designation of the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, under Section 128 of the Serious organised Crime and Police Act 2005, according to Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 930.

I confirm that the House administration does hold some information relevant to your request. The only documentation related to the subject that we hold concerns the wording of the text to be used on signs displayed at the entrance to Parliamentary buildings and around the Parliamentary Estate Perimeter. A copy is enclosed for your information together with a document we have created showing the wording of the signs now displayed.

F Grey

Frances Grey
Freedom of Information Officer

House of Lords Record Office {The Parliamentary Archives), London, SW1A 0PA, UK

Tel +44 (0)20 7219 0100 Fax +44 (0)20 7219 2570 e-mail foilords@parliament.uk web www.parliament.uk


March 2007 Letter from a Senior Home Office Civil Servant to the Parliamentary Security Co-Ordinator

Received 26 March 2007

Home Office
5th Floor Peel Building 2MS, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 0870 0001585 Direct Line 020 7035 [nnnn]
E-mail [Senior HO Civil Servant]@HomeOffice.gsi.gov.uk www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Peter Mason Esq
[address]

23 March 2007

Dear Peter

TRESPASS ON DESIGNATED SITES SIGNAGE AT THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER AND PORTCULLIS HOUSE SITE

I enclose a copy of self-explanatory letter sent to [name 0] by [Policy Team Leader].

Whilst I appreciate that you do not wish to get drawn in on the issue of signs, I would nevertheless be grateful for any general support you can offer Robert. I know the policy is not a welcome one but it is one to which the Government has committed us and it will be difficult for us all if it is called into disrepute.

Yours

[Senior HO Civil Servant]

"I know the policy is not a welcome one" - is that the policy on warning signs, which, probably were being resisted on aesthetic artistic grounds ? Have some of the officials actually been worrying about the restriction on freedom of the public, and the chilling effect this will have on the functioning of Parliament ?


March 2007 Email to Parliamentary Estates Division from the Policy Team Leader at the Home Office Central Unit, which concisely lays out the chronology of the meetings and decisions and the importance of adequate signage:

Home Office 5th Floor Peel Building 2MS, London, SW1P 4DF Switchboard 0870 0001585 Direct Line 020 7035 [nnnn] E-mail [Policy Team Leader]@HomeOffice.gsi.gov.uk www.homeoffice.gov.uk


[name 0]
Parliamentary Estates Division
BY EMAIL

Date 23 March 2007

Dear [name 0]

TRESPASS ON PROTECTED SITES: SIGNAGE AT THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER AND PORTCULLIS HOUSE

I am writing following our conversation on 12 March during which you explained that certain parties in your organisation have expressed concern about the proposed public entrance signs and the need for internal signs. I undertook to set out for you the implications, as we perceive them, of not implementing the signage policy we have recommended.

As you know, we will shortly be laying The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Sites under Section 128) Order 2007, before Parliament, which will designate 16 royal, governmental and parliamentary sites, including the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, as protected sites on which trespass will be a criminal offence.The order will come into force on 1st. June 2007. The policy as to which sites should be designated was cleared at DA Committee in March 2005 and subsequently agreed by the Prime Minister. It was then brokered to the House Authorities by Peter Mason.

"DA Committee" = Ministerial Committee on Domestic Affiars (DA) - chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.

Peter Mason = Parliamentary Security Co-Ordinator

The Sunday Times
October 16, 2005 Secret plan to evacuate Commons

"In December, a former MI5 officer was appointed to take charge of parliamentary security. Peter Mason, a top-ranking counter-terrorism officer who has worked for the agency for more than 15 years, has been given “operational freedom” in an emergency and is able to order the prime minister, the cabinet and MPs to evacuate parliament."

In order for the offence to be effective it is essential that the protected sites take steps to ensure that members of the public are aware of the designation. Section 131(2) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 states that:

"The Secretary of State may take such steps as he considers appropriate to inform the public of the effect of any designation order, including, in particular, displaying notices on or near the site to which the order relates."

You will note that section 131 (2) is a power rather than a duty on the Secretary of State and Section 131 (3) makes it clear that the Secretary of State may only display any notice or take any other steps "if the responsible person is consents".

However, there is a clear link between the powers in section 131(2) and the defence to the offence in section 128(4). Under section 128(4) if a person can prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect the site in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed was a designated site then he has a defence to the offence. The steps that the Secretary of State takes under section 131(2) will assist in ensuring that this defence is not available to persons knowingly trespassing on the site.

Formulated with this in mind the policy regarding signage that we wish to see implemented is as set out in Appendix A. This was sent to Peter Mason on 12 July 2006.

If these Designations of sites are really somehow vital for national security, then why has it taken almost 2 years to implement the policy, since SOCPA Section 128 came into force ?

In preparing it we consulted colleagues across government who have implemented comparable legislation. as well as the Crown Prosecution Service

When we met on 28th. September 2006 with [name 1], [name 2], [name 3] and [name 4], to discuss signage for the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House, it was agreed that the wording of access point signage should be more welcoming than the standard wording suggested in the guidance document. We therefore suggested the following form of words for use at St Stephen's Entrance, and other entrances where members of the public are admitted to the site:

Welcome to the Palace of Westminster This is a protected site under Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Trespass in this site us a criminal offence
For this reason , non pass-holders should remain with their escorts at all times and/or remain within the areas to which they have been admitted.

If this wording were used there would still need to be internal signs but they would not need to be trespass specific. For example , "No unauthorised entry" or "Private" could be used.

It would be acceptable to de-couple the entrance sign wording (as has been suggested) depending on the positioning of the two signs. It is important to ensure that visitors are aware of what constitutes trespass at your particular site. Turning to the internal signs issue, if these are not agreed to it could be very difficult for an individual to know where is and isn't an area to which they have been admitted. If it is not clear to an individual where they are supposed to go then the chances of a successful prosecution are slim. As you will appreciate we do not wish the offence to be brought into disrepute by a failed prosecution in the parliament building.

The caveat that I would add to all of this advice is that there are, of course, no guarantees that these measures will be sufficient to secure successful prosecutions in every case as it will be up to a court to determine.However, based on legal advice, we believe that they provide the best chance of catching the majority of malicious trespassers and preventing inadvertent trespass.

This reliance on signs is a flawed policy by officials and lawyers and politicians, who seem to have forgotten the vast numbers of foreign tourists who visit Whitehall and Parliament, who cannot all be assumed to be able to read or understand signs written in legalistic English. The sign on the Horseguards Road railings on the Downing Street site at least also incorporates a typical road sign graphic i.e. a pedestrian in a red circle with bar.

There are also many British and Foreign people who cannot read English very well, if at all (e.g. children, dyslexics etc.) or who cannot see such signs properly due to visual impairment.

In view of your conversation with [personal name] yesterday, I'd be grateful if you could convene a meeting with the House Authorities, myself and [Senior HO Civil Servant] at the earliest opportunity to discuss these matters further.

Than you in advance for your continued cooperation in this matter. A copy of this letter goes to Peter Mason.

Yours sincerely,

[civil servant]
Policy Team Leader
Home Office Central Unit.


July 2006 Appendix giving general policy advice about signs and section 128 - presumably this was sent to all the other Designated sites as well:

Appendix A
TRESPASS ON DESIGNATED SITES: IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 131(2) AND (3) OF THE SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AND POLICE ACT 2005

Introduction

1.     This note gives guidance on the implementation of section 131(2) and (3) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

2.     Section 131(2) states:


    "The Secretary of State may take such steps as he considers appropriate to inform the public of the effect of any designation order, including, in particular, displaying notices on or near the site to which the order relates."

    3.     Whilst such measures will predominantly take the form of signs, they could take a number of forms ranging from external or internal signs, letters to appropriate organisations, notices in local publications and so on.

Why, in the 21st Century, do these officials not bother to think about publishing such notices via the internet, especially on the departmental or organisational public websites ?

The ideal is for such measures to be implemented as the risk of not doing so is that the trespasser could successfully use the defence in section 128(4) which states:
    "It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the site in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been committed was a protected site"

Why did Parliament allow this "reverse burden of proof" section to stand as part of the legislation ? The defendant should not have to prove his innocence, by having to prove both his ignorance as well as, simultaneously, his lack of suspicion.

It should be up to the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Appropriate steps to inform the public

(i) Signage - All sites

4.     The main method for informing the public should be signage on external boundaries and entrances.The wording used should be:

NO UNAUTHORISED ACCESS
This is a protected site under Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Trespass on this site is a criminal offence

N.B. this is not quite the wording which has actually appeared in practice

See SOCPA Section 128 Protected Site signs within the SOCPA Section 132 Designated Area for some photo images.

5.     There is no recommended format or design for the signs as they will probably need to follow the corporate identity of their site and there ma be English Heritage and planning permission issues also. Ideally they should be approximately 50cm x 50cm in size.

6.     Signs should be at 100 feet intervals unless there is a clear fence line when it could be extended to 100 metre intervals If there are significant obstacles to visibility signs should be sited more frequently to ensure a member of the public is aware of the offence.

Note the quaint mixture of feet and metres.

Where signs exist on the Palace of Westminster and Portcullis House railings, they are much more frequent than this, however, there are notable omissions e.g. the glass fronted main public entrance to Portcullis House.

7.     For sites which do not have an external perimeter, sins should be attached to the exterior of the building and at access points to the building. In terms of the latter, these will probably be best located at a convenient and obvious position inside the entrance to the building. We recommend tgat escorted visitors have their attention drawn to the signs and for all staff within each building to ensure that they escort such individuals at all times.

This completely changes the character of the experience of attending a meeting in a Committee Room either in the Committee Room Corridor of the main Palace of Westminster, or in Portcullis House, either as a member of the public or as someone giving oral evidence to a Select Committee.

(ii) Additional Measures - Sites that host major functions

8.     Some sites to be designated host major functions e.g. Garden parties, and visitors may access these sites through non-conventional entrances and in such circumstances it may not be possible to have a sign at entrances. In such situation we recommend that a letter be sent out to individuals with their invite which includes the following form of words informing them of the operation of the offence:

[name of site] is a protected site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Trespass at this site is a criminal offence. You must remain within the public area at all times. Failure to do so may make you liable to prosecution.

(iii) Additional Measures - Sites that admit ordinary members of the public to publicly accessible visitor areas of buildings:

9.     Some sites admit members of the public to publicly accessible areas of their buildings for a fee (e.g. Summer Opening at Buckingham Palace). The wording in paragraph 8 should be included in a sign on the ticket desk as well as the wording being included on the ticket. The attention of visitors should be drawn to this wording.

10.     In respect of (ii) and (iii) it will also be important to ensure that the public are properly contained and all access to private areas is prevented, using appropriate means that already exist (stewards, lock downs etc.). Such measures, combined with the on entry warning, will obviate the need for offence specific signage throughout the interior of the building. If such measures are not already in place, they will need to be implemented.

(iv)Additional Measures - Sites with public access rights through or near them

11.     Some sites have footpaths, or other routes of public access, passing through or very close to them and it is possible that additional measures should be considered, for example, a notice in local publications, letters to local organisations, seeking the advice of local Council rights of way officers, This is not an exhaustive list of additional measures that could be employed and local site owners should consider whether any additional measures are necessary and discuss these with the Home Office Central Unit.

Home Office Central Unit

July 2006


The House of Lords wording used on their temporary / free standing signs by their entrances to the House of Lords e.g. the Monarch's entrance.

Trespass on this site is a criminal offence.

This is a protected site under Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Non pass-holders should remain with their escorts at all times and.or remain within the areas to which they have been admitted.


Post a comment