The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It introduced a number of changes to the law, most notably in the restriction and reduction of existing rights, clamping down on unlicensed rave parties, and greater penalties for certain "anti-social" behaviours. The Bill was introduced by Michael Howard, Home Secretary of Prime Minister John Major's Conservative government, and attracted widespread opposition.

A primary motivation for the act was to curb illegal raves and free parties, especially the traveller festival circuit, which was steadily growing in the early 1990s, culminating in the 1992 Castlemorton Common Festival.^[1] Following debates in the House of Commons in its aftermath,^[2] Prime Minister John Major alluded to a future clampdown with then Home Secretary Ken Clarke at that year's Conservative Party conference.^[3] At the 1993 conference, Michael Howard, who had become Home Secretary, announced details of the new Criminal Justice Bill.^[4]

Despite protests and discord against the bill, the opposition Labour Party took an official line to abstain at the third reading,^[5] and the Act passed into law on 3 November 1994.

Key measures of the act that received public attention included:

• Part III, sections 34–39 which substantially changed the right to silence of an accused person, allowing for inferences to be drawn from their silence.
• Part IV, sections 54–59 which gave the police greater rights to take and retain intimate body samples.
• Part IV, section 60 which increased police powers of unsupervised stop and search.^[6]
• The whole of Part V covered collective trespass and nuisance on land and included sections against raves and further sections against disruptive trespass, squatters, and unauthorised campers – most significantly the criminalisation of previously civil offences. This affected many forms of protest including hunt sabotage and anti-road protests. Sections 63–67 in particular defined any gathering of 20 or more people where:

  63(1)(b) "music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.

• Part V, section 80 which repealed the duty imposed on councils by the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide sites for gypsy and traveller use. Grant aid for the provision of sites was also withdrawn.^[7]
• Part VII, which handled "Obscenity and Pornography", banning simulated child pornography, harshening provisions dealing with the censorship and age restriction of videos (as administered by the British Board of Film Classification BBFC), and also increasing the penalty on obscene phone calls.
• Part XI, which dealt with sexual offences. The definition of rape was extended to include anal rape, previously prosecuted as buggery. This offence was disestablished, as Section 143 - though not given much consideration - legalised anal sex between heterosexual couples over the age of 18. It had been legal for homosexual couples over the age of 21 since 1967. Section 145 lowered the age at which homosexual acts were legal, from 21 years to 18: this latter provision was introduced in the Bill after an amendment by Anthony Durant to that effect had passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 427 to 162 (a majority of 265). In the House of Lords, an attempt to remove section 145 (and as such retain 21 as the age of consent for gay sex) was rejected by a vote of 176 to 113 (a majority of 63).^[8] During consideration of the Bill, another amendment, introduced by Edwina Currie, which would have further reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 (thereby equating it with that for heterosexual sex), ended up failing 280–307 (a majority of 27). Analysis of the division list revealed that 42 Conservative MPs had supported equalisation, and the motion would have been carried but for the opposing votes of 38 Labour MPs.^[9][10] In the House of Lords Baron McIntosh also tried to introduce a provision equalizing the age of consent, but was not successful, with his motion ultimately failing 73–245 (a majority of 172).^[11]
• Part XII, which was a miscellany, and included the notice that the "Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. (was henceforth) to be arrestable", although this was later to be modified by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Part XII also criminalised the use of cells from embryos and foetuses.

Whilst the legislation was still under debate, the groups Advance Party and Freedom Network coordinated a campaign of resistance. The group was composed of an alliance of sound systems and civil liberties groups.^[12] A movement against the bill grew across "the overlapping squatting, road protest and free party scenes".^[2]

Three demonstrations were organised in London throughout 1994. The first of these took place on 1 May (May Day), with an estimated 20,000 people taking part in a march starting at Hyde Park and finishing at Trafalgar Square.^[2] The second, on 24 July, followed the same route with numbers estimated between 20,000 and 50,000.^[13][14] The larger turnout was partly attributed to a mobilisation from the Socialist Workers Party and with them placards reading "Kill the Bill", but it also created a degree of "political tension" with the other founding groups.^[2][15]

The third demonstration was called on 9 October,^[14][2] with police estimating 20,000 to 30,000 people attending, while organisers put the figure at over 100,000. The day ended in a riot in Hyde Park that continued into the evening.^[16] Accounts stated that, around 5 pm, a confrontation occurred between protesters and police when protesters attempted to bring two sound systems into the park. With such a large number of protesters, the police were overpowered and backed off. Riot and mounted police reinforcements arrived shortly afterwards, and reportedly charged at protesters in an attempt to disperse the estimated 1,500-person crowd.^[17]

The civil liberties group Liberty opposed many of the measures proposed by the act at the time, regarding them as "wrong in principle and likely to violate the European Convention on Human Rights".^[18]

Jon Savage, author of books on youth culture, said of the legislation in Bill form, "It's about politicians making laws on the basis of judging people's lifestyles, and that's no way to make laws".^[19] George Monbiot described it as "crude, ill-drafted and repressive".^[20] The Act was described by Professor of Cultural Studies Jeremy Gilbert as a "piece of legislation which was "explicitly aimed at suppressing the activities of certain strands of alternative culture", the main targets being squatting, direct action, football fan culture, hunt sabotage and the free party.^[21]

The sections which specifically refer to parties or raves were, according to Professor of Sociology Nigel South, "badly defined and drafted" in an atmosphere of moral panic following the Castlemorton Common Festival.^[22][23] The law's attempt to define music in terms of "repetitive beats" was described as "bizarre" by Professor of Law Robert Lee.^[1]

Reflecting on the time, the journalist Ally Fogg wrote in The Guardian:

Few listened to our warnings then. After all, we were just a bunch of social outcasts with silly hats and questionable personal hygiene. Beyond some welcome support from Liberty and a handful of progressive trades unions, we stood pretty much alone against the whole political and media establishment. This most draconian and illiberal of Conservative laws could only eventually pass through parliament because a young shadow home secretary shocked almost everyone by deciding not to oppose the bill at the final reading. At the time it was assumed that he decided to let the bill through so as not to look soft on crime, or hand a propaganda victory to the Tories. In doing so, he sacrificed several cornerstones of British civil liberties on the altar of political expediency. His name? Tony Blair. Fifteen years on, there is little pleasure to be gained from saying "we told you so". But the manner in which a law designed to prevent the wholesale mayhem of Castlemorton can now be used to foreclose a birthday party should serve as a stark warning to those currently considering a raft of other illiberal legislation, from the coroners and justice bill to the various ID card proposals. Those who deride the contributors to liberty central when they warn about the incessant creep of police powers, or who scoff at "slippery slope" arguments around civil liberties, should bear in mind that we stood at the top of one of those slopes only 15 short years ago, and we have slid a long way down it since.^[24]

• Public Order Act
• Law of the United Kingdom
• Riot Act
• Stop and Search
• Civil liberties
• Direct action