🔴 Violent Disorder Explained: Why Is Everybody Getting It Wrong?

Ever since the 2024 riots and the hundreds of subsequent convictions for violent disorder, many commentators have taken to social media and conflated the public order offence of violent disorder with actual acts of violence in order to create false narratives for their own advantage.

In this op-ed, we intend to set the legal record straight with a clear clarification of why a person does not need to commit acts of violence to be rightfully convicted of Section 2 violent disorder.

Focused on the conduct of the group rather than any single individual, violent disorder under the Public Order Act 1986, Section 2, occurs when three or more persons use or threaten unlawful violence, and their behaviour is such that a person of reasonable firmness would fear for their safety. This includes actions such as causing damage to property, blocking streets, or arming oneself with weapons, even sticks or stones.

Crucially, the offence is committed simply by being part of the assembled group. The law allows for no “spectators.” When violent disorder is taking place, a reasonable person is expected to leave. Anyone who remains is treated by law as encouraging or supporting the unlawful violence and is considered a participant, liable for the actions of the group. Drawing on the old laws of Unlawful Assembly, being part of a group threatening the peace is itself a crime.

A recent example of misrepresenting the law can be seen in this post from UKIP leader Nick Tenconi:

Illegal migrant hotel protestor Jamie has been unfairly jailed for three years and four months for ‘violent disorder’ at a hotel protest, despite not being violent or disorderly.

Jamie’s crimes were opening an unlocked gate, swearing, and accidentally knocking a few bricks off an old wall after he leaned on it.

We are shocked to learn that Jamie is the latest victim of the two-tier system and would ask people to donate to support his family here:

Full post here: https://x.com/NickTenconi/status/1988605820821516408

UKIP leader Nick Tenconi claimed that an “illegal migrant hotel protestor Jamie” had been unfairly jailed for violent disorder, without mentioning his surname—a convenient omission that discourages readers from checking the court record or accurate press reporting. Tenconi’s argument is that Turvey could not have committed violent disorder because he himself did not physically attack anyone. Yet under Section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986, the offence does not require a single person to commit actual violence. It is focused on the conduct of the group: three or more people who use or threaten unlawful violence, creating fear for safety.

Acts such as smashing a window or banging on doors are treated by law as threats in themselves, even without physical violence or a stated intent to harm an individual. Historically, offences like Rout and Unlawful Assembly recognised that a group’s combined presence and conduct—shouting, damaging property, or creating fear—could intimidate and threaten safety, even without anyone striking a blow.

The full facts of the case were established at trial and reported fairly by the press. On 31 July 2024, Jamie Lee Turvey, 35, of Farnborough, was part of a group outside the Potters International Hotel in Aldershot. During the protest, a breakaway group formed, which included individuals climbing onto roofs, breaking into areas where asylum seekers were residing, and, as part of this, Turvey forcibly opened a gate, removed bricks from a surrounding wall and dropped them in front of officers, warning that if they made arrests, things would “kick off”.

The group struck windows and doors and hurled donated bicycles at the hotel.

Textbook violent disorder: Turvey was described by prosecutors as one of the leaders of a group of sufficient size, whose actions constituted a clear threat of violence in context. Not only does this behaviour meet the statutory definition, but it was also presented at trial. Turvey argued that he was not guilty of violent disorder, yet a jury of ordinary members of the public rejected that defence and convicted him. The law, applied correctly, is clear: being part of a group threatening violence, even without physically harming someone, is enough to satisfy the offence.

There is no anomaly, inconsistency, or modern invention at play. The law has always distinguished between public order offences—such as affray, violent disorder, and riot—and offences against the person, such as assault or grievous bodily harm.

It’s difficult to imagine how we would function without public order offences. Without affray, yobs could openly fight in the street in broad daylight if no party was seriously injured and no one wanted to press charges. Violent disorder isn’t about politics or infringing on the right to protest. It’s about balancing people’s right to safety. Without violent disorder, no one would be safe from intimidation by threatening mobs.

This isn’t about judging the law or judging those who have broken the law; it’s about promoting honest, responsible, and realistic discussion.