Legal Commentary: Responding to Riot: Lessons from August 2011
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| Date | 01 August 2012 |
| Published date | 01 August 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225412447165 |
Youth Justice
12(2) 134 –143
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225412447165
yjj.sagepub.com
Legal Commentary
Responding to Riot: Lessons from
August 2011
Nigel Stone
Prominently reported at the time, the episodes of large-scale crime and disorder in
England over five days in August 2011 have subsequently attracted much dissection and
analysis. Rioting on that scale ‘was unprecedented in the modern era because of the
number of different incidents taking place in different locations over the same period of
time’ (House of Commons, 2011). Beginning in Tottenham, North London with an ini-
tially peaceful protest in response to the fatal shooting by police of an unarmed black
man, tensions mounted and fighting, fires and looting resulted. Disorder then occurred
in other areas of London before spreading to several other cities and towns.1
A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) overview (2011) detailed that across the ten police
force areas principally affected 5112 disorder-related crimes were recorded, most
commonly involving some form of acquisitive crime which accounted for 50 per cent
of this total, with criminal damage accounting for a further 36 per cent. Though five
members of the public were killed, violent offences were less numerous, comprising
seven per cent of the total. Just over half (51 per cent) of all crimes were committed
against commercial (usually retail) premises, a further 19 per cent targeting vehicles,
while 13 per cent were against individuals, predominantly featuring robbery and
assault. Six per cent of offences were against the police. By early September those ten
police forces had arrested 3900 persons for their part in the disorder. Over half of the
1984 persons who subsequently appeared in court by 12 October, facing prosecution
for burglary (45 per cent), public order offences (such as violent disorder or affray),
criminal damage etc, were aged 20 or younger, 26 per cent being juveniles aged under
Corresponding author:
Nigel Stone, School of Social Work and Psychology, Elizabeth Fry Building, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ,
UK.
Email: n.stone@uea.ac.uk
447165YJJ12210.1177/1473225412447165StoneYouth Justice
2012
To continue reading
Request your trial