What Is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994?

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is a UK statute that reshaped policing and criminal procedure in England and Wales by expanding police powers, cutting back the long-standing right to silence, and creating new offenses covering unauthorized raves, aggravated trespass, and unauthorized encampments. It still forms the backbone of public order policing more than three decades later, though several of its provisions have since been amended, toughened, or constrained by human rights rulings.

Changes to the Right to Silence

Before 1994, staying silent during police questioning or at trial carried no formal legal consequence. The Act changed that. Under Sections 34 to 37, courts and juries can now draw “adverse inferences” from a suspect’s silence in defined situations, treating that silence as a factor weighing against the defendant.

Section 34 targets what prosecutors call “ambush defenses.” If a suspect says nothing to police but later advances a detailed explanation at trial, the jury can ask why that explanation did not come up earlier. The logic is that an innocent person with a genuine account would normally share it at the first opportunity. There is a critical safeguard: no inference can be drawn under Section 34 if the suspect was in police custody and had not yet been allowed to consult a solicitor. That protection sits in Section 34(2A).¹

Section 35 applies at trial itself. If a defendant chooses not to testify, the judge must first make sure they understand that the jury can draw conclusions from that choice. Two exceptions apply: no inference is drawn if guilt is not genuinely in dispute, or if the court finds the defendant’s physical or mental condition makes testifying inadvisable. The Act is explicit that defendants are not legally compelled to testify and cannot be held in contempt for refusing.²

Sections 36 and 37 cover narrower situations. Section 36 applies when someone is arrested with suspicious objects, substances, or marks on their person, clothing, or belongings and refuses to explain them after being asked. Section 37 covers presence at or near the scene of a crime at the relevant time: refusing to explain why can count against the suspect at trial. In both cases, the suspect must first be cautioned and told that silence could be used against them.¹

Stop and Search Under Section 60

Ordinary policing rules require officers to have specific grounds for suspecting a person before searching them. Section 60 creates a broad exception. When an officer of at least inspector rank reasonably believes that serious violence may occur in a particular area, or that people are carrying weapons there without good reason, that officer can authorize stop-and-search powers across a defined zone for up to 24 hours.³

Once the authorization is live, any uniformed officer in the designated area can stop and search any person or vehicle for weapons without needing grounds to suspect that specific individual. The power attaches to the location, not to behavior. A superintendent or higher can extend the authorization for a further 24 hours. Refusing to stop, or refusing to stop a vehicle, when required by an officer exercising Section 60 powers is a criminal offense carrying up to one month’s imprisonment or a Level 3 fine, or both.³

Section 60 is a powerful preventive tool, particularly for knife crime hotspots and large events, and a persistent target of criticism. Until 2021, a voluntary Home Office “Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme” imposed extra restrictions, including a higher authorizing rank and shorter maximum duration. Those voluntary constraints were permanently removed in 2022, returning the power to its full statutory scope.⁴

Powers Against Raves

The Act’s rave provisions were aimed squarely at unlicensed outdoor parties on the early-1990s electronic music scene. Section 63 lets police act when 100 or more people gather on open land at night with amplified music likely to cause serious distress to nearby residents. The statute famously defined the target music as sounds “wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.”⁵

When an officer believes such a gathering is in progress or being prepared, they can direct everyone present to leave. Ignoring the direction, or returning to the site within seven days, is a criminal offense carrying up to three months in prison, a fine of up to £2,500 (Level 4), or both. Officers can also seize sound equipment and vehicles used in connection with the event.⁵

Section 65 extends the reach outward. A uniformed officer who reasonably believes someone is heading toward a gathering where a dispersal direction is already in force can stop that person within five miles of the site and direct them to turn back. Knowingly ignoring that direction is a separate offense. The combined effect is to let police break up raves and cut off the flow of people trying to reach them.⁶

Aggravated Trespass

Section 68 created a new offense aimed at protests that physically disrupted lawful activity. A person commits aggravated trespass by trespassing on land and doing something intended to intimidate, obstruct, or disrupt people carrying out a lawful activity on that land or nearby. The provision was originally directed at hunt saboteurs and environmental protesters blocking construction sites, but its wording is broad enough to cover any protest that crosses from presence into interference.⁷

As first enacted, the offense applied only to land “in the open air.” The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 removed that limit, extending Section 68 to buildings. What began as a countryside policing tool now covers protests inside offices, shops, and other enclosed premises.⁷

The penalty is up to three months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £2,500, or both. Under Section 69, the senior officer at the scene can direct anyone committing, or intending to commit, aggravated trespass to leave immediately. Failing to leave, or returning as a trespasser within three months, is a separate offense carrying the same maximum penalty. A defendant can argue they were not actually trespassing or had a reasonable excuse for staying.⁸

Trespass, Encampments, and Squatting

The Act dealt with unauthorized occupation of land and property through several overlapping sections, some substantially rewritten by later statutes.

Removing Trespassers From Land

Section 61 lets the senior police officer at a scene direct trespassers to leave land and remove their vehicles when three conditions are met: two or more people are trespassing with the intention of staying, the landowner has asked them to leave, and the trespassers have either caused damage, disruption, or distress, or brought six or more vehicles onto the land. Ignoring the direction or returning within the prohibited period is punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment, a Level 4 fine, or both.⁹

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 expanded Section 61 significantly for England and Wales. The prohibited re-entry period was extended from three months to twelve, and the “damage, disruption or distress” trigger was broadened to make the power easier to invoke. The 2022 Act also created a standalone offense under a new Section 60C, criminalizing residing on land in a vehicle without consent where the conduct causes or is likely to cause significant damage or disruption. Police can seize vehicles and property connected to this offense and hold them for up to three months.¹⁰

Unauthorized Encampments

Sections 77 and 78 target unauthorized camping by people residing in vehicles. A local authority can direct anyone living in a vehicle on a highway, on unoccupied land, or on occupied land without permission to move on. Failing to leave as soon as practicable, or returning within three months, is a criminal offense carrying a fine. If the direction is ignored, the authority can apply to a magistrates’ court under Section 78 for an order authorizing physical removal of vehicles and property, including entry onto the land after 24 hours’ notice.¹¹

These provisions disproportionately affect Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities, and they have drawn sustained criticism for criminalizing a nomadic way of life without providing adequate authorized stopping places.

Squatting

The Act streamlined eviction of squatters through a new form of interim possession order. Under Section 76, anyone present as a trespasser in premises covered by such an order commits an offense unless they leave within 24 hours of the order being served. Returning as a trespasser within one year after the order expires is also criminal. The maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment, a Level 5 fine (unlimited since 2015), or both.¹²

The Act’s squatting rules were later overtaken by a more direct measure. Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 made it a standalone criminal offense to enter a residential building as a trespasser and live or intend to live there. The penalty is up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment, a Level 5 fine, or both, and no court order is needed first. Squatting in commercial buildings generally remains a civil rather than criminal matter.¹³

DNA and Biological Samples

The Act rewrote the rules on collecting biological evidence by amending the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The central change was reclassifying mouth swabs and hair samples (other than pubic hair) as “non-intimate.” Before 1994, these needed higher authorization and the suspect’s consent. After the change, police could take them without consent from anyone charged with a recordable offense or when authorized by a senior officer on reasonable suspicion grounds.¹⁴

Intimate samples remain more tightly controlled. Blood, urine, dental impressions, pubic hair, and genital swabs still require both the suspect’s consent and authorization from an officer of at least inspector rank. A suspect who refuses an intimate sample without good reason can face adverse inferences at trial, creating a practical pressure to agree even though forcible collection is not permitted.¹⁴

DNA profiles collected under these powers are uploaded to the National DNA Database and can be matched against evidence from unsolved cases. The original Act placed few limits on retention, and police routinely kept DNA from people who were never convicted. That practice was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 responded by imposing statutory time limits on retention when no conviction follows. In outline: three years, with a possible two-year judicial extension, where someone is charged but not convicted of a serious qualifying offense; three years with Biometrics Commissioner approval, plus a possible two-year extension, where someone is arrested but not charged for a qualifying offense; no retention for most minor-offense arrests unless the person has a prior conviction; and two years for an adult Penalty Notice for Disorder. Anyone with a previous recordable conviction has their biometrics retained indefinitely regardless of the new case’s outcome, as do all convicted individuals. Qualifying offenses include sexual offenses, violent crimes, terrorism, and burglary.¹⁵

Human Rights Challenges

The silence provisions have been tested repeatedly against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a fair trial. The European Court of Human Rights has said the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination sit “at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure,” but has also held that neither right is absolute.

The leading case is Murray v United Kingdom (1996). The European Court ruled that drawing adverse inferences from silence does not automatically breach Article 6. Courts look at the circumstances: the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, the weight given to the silence, and the pressure the suspect was under. The key limit is that a conviction cannot be “solely or mainly” based on silence. Where the prosecution’s evidence genuinely calls for an explanation the defendant should be able to give, treating refusal to explain as meaningful is compatible with fair trial rights.¹⁶

That is where the Section 34(2A) solicitor safeguard matters. European case law has emphasized access to legal advice before questioning as a critical factor in judging the fairness of silence-based inferences. The Act’s built-in protection, blocking inferences where a suspect was denied a solicitor, aligns with that requirement and has helped the provisions survive ongoing scrutiny.¹

DNA retention went the other way. In S and Marper v United Kingdom (2008), the European Court found that indefinite retention of DNA profiles from people never convicted was a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private life under Article 8. That ruling directly prompted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and its time-limited retention framework.

How the Act Looks in 2026

The version of the Act in force today differs noticeably from the one passed in 1994. The 2003 Anti-social Behaviour Act extended aggravated trespass to buildings. The 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act added the standalone residential squatting offense that largely superseded the Act’s interim possession order route. The 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act imposed time limits on DNA retention after S and Marper. The 2022 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act stretched Section 61’s prohibited re-entry period to twelve months and added the new Section 60C vehicle-residence offense. Also in 2022, the voluntary Home Office constraints on Section 60 were permanently removed, restoring that power’s full statutory scope.¹⁰⁴

The direction of travel has mostly been toward stronger enforcement powers rather than weaker ones. The clearest exception is DNA retention, where human rights litigation forced a real contraction of state power. For trespass and public order, the trend has pushed consistently toward broader police authority and harsher consequences for refusing to comply.

1
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 34
2
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 35
3
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 60
4
College of Policing. Legal Basis
5
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 63
6
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Powers in Relation to Raves
7
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 68
8
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 69
9
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 61
10
Legislation.gov.uk. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – Part 4
11
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Section 78
12
Legislation.gov.uk. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Squatters
13
Legislation.gov.uk. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 – Section 144
14
Legislation.gov.uk. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Section 62
15
GOV.UK. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – DNA and Fingerprint Provisions
16
HUDOC. John Murray v the United Kingdom