I hope they win their cases, but there is no certainty about that. Sentences are likely to be lenient because those charged have not been violent or threatening and have not damaged anything. They have not incited others to violence. I suspect there may be fines or even conditional discharges. A lot depends upon the individual magistrate or judge. The courts will get clogged with these cases. Part of the action is to persuade the police not to act. The police have a discretion. Most offences are effectively ignored. A courageous Chief Constable or the Commissioner could say that resources are not going to be allocated to intervene in demonstrations which are not violent or threatening.
Looks like your right again NGB, I think they’ll go for the lesser section 13 charge to not clog up the Crown Courts, section 13 charges are heard in the Magistrates Court? Defend our Juries were hoping for the either way Section 12 to be heard in front of a jury?
Offences under "Section 13" vary greatly depending on the specific law, but commonly include wearing or displaying items of a proscribed organization in public (Terrorism Act 2000), prohibiting public processions (Public Order Act 1986), child sex offences by under-18s (Sexual Offences Act 2003), or dishonestly abstracting electricity (Theft Act 1968), so it is crucial to specify the correct Act of Parliament to identify the relevant offence.
Here are some examples of "offences under Section 13":
Terrorism Act 2000:
Wearing clothing or carrying articles in public that arouse suspicion of being a member or supporter of a proscribed organization, or publishing images of such items.
Maximum penalty: Six months imprisonment or a fine.
