The Metropolitan police commissioner has hit back at criticism of his force’s decision not to makes arrests after shouts of “jihad” at an anti-Israel protest, saying the police cannot enforce “taste and decency” and laws should be changed if politicians want tougher action taken.
Mark Rowley was speaking after meeting home secretary on Monday, with Suella Braverman asking why police did not arrest those responsible for chanting “jihad” at a rally of the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir group on Saturday.
The commissioner said the law may need to change. Downing Street say there were no plans to do so, while the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, said any gaps should be plugged.
After the meeting, Rowley said he believed the home secretary was thinking hard about whether laws may need changing.
Rowley said: “I was explaining how we are absolutely ruthless in tackling anybody who puts their foot over the legal line. We are accountable to the law – we can’t enforce taste or decency – but we can enforce the law. We’ve made 34 arrests so far … We have another 22 cases … where we are searching for individuals.”
Rowley finished his service with the Met in 2018 as head of counter-terrorism, and in 2021 co-wrote a report on extremism. It described a “gaping chasm” in laws allowing “extremists to operate with impunity”. The report was for the commission on countering extremism, which advises ministers, and made recommendations to the government, which has so far not taken any action.
Earlier this year, John Saunders told the government to hurry up its consideration of the commission’s findings in his report into the Manchester Arena bombings.
Rowley said of the meeting with Braverman: “The conversation finished around the line of the law. It’s our job to enforce to that line. It’s parliament’s job to draw that line. Maybe events of the moment are illustrating that some of the lines aren’t quite in the right place.
“There have been reports from counter-extremism commissioners, the law commission and more recently Sir John Saunders at the Manchester inquiry/inquest that the law needs to be stronger in dealing with extremism. I know the home secretary is thinking hard about that. So a constructive meeting, in difficult times, where sober and determined heads are what’s required.”
In an interview shared with news organisations, Rowley doubled down on his view that there were gaps in the law.
Multiple sources have confirmed to the Guardian that the specific decision that the shouts of “jihad” at the Saturday protest were not breaking the law were taken by police as well as lawyers from the counter-terrorism division of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales.
The Met commissioner said: “The law around hate crime and terrorism over recent decades hasn’t taken full account of the ability of extremist groups to steer round those laws and propagate some pretty toxic messages through social media. Those lines probably need redrawing.
“There are many countries around the world with different frameworks that have some advantages. Hizb ut-Tahrir … are banned in Germany and most of the Muslim world.
“There are lessons to be learned, but it is for politicians and parliament to draw the line. I’m focused … on enforcing the letter of the law and putting thousands of extra officers out in communities to reassure people who are understandably fearful given the ghastly events across the world.”
In light of the weekend’s events, Downing Street said police already had “extensive powers” to take action against demonstrators who chanted about “jihad”, while Starmer said ministers should consider new legislation.
Starmer, who was director of public prosecutions before entering politics, said on Monday that although it was a matter for the police, ministers should look into the lessons from the review co-led by Rowley.
“I think there have already been identified some gaps in the law in a previous review under this government and I think the government needs to look at whether there are gaps in the law that need to be addressed as well,” the Labour leader told reporters on a visit to Wales.
Downing Street appeared to have a different view. “We do believe that police have extensive powers in this space,” Rishi Sunak’s spokesperson said, when asked if officers could or should have done more. “We will continue to discuss with them so that there is clarity and agreement about how they can be deployed on the ground.”
On Sunday, the immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, said the use of “jihad” at the Hizb ut-Tahrir rally, which was separate from a much larger pro-Palestine rally, was “inciting terrorist violence” and should “be tackled with the full force of the law”.
Sunak’s spokesperson declined to endorse this view, while saying that the scenes “will have likely have been incredibly distressing for people to witness, not least for the UK’s Jewish community, who deserve to feel safe at what must be an incredibly traumatic time”.
He said: “That’s why the government is working so closely with the police and other groups to ensure there is clarity for those officers on the ground to take action where they believe the law has been broken.
“That decision is an operational one and will remain so, and that is right. But we will continue to discuss with the police about what more can be done.”
But in the Commons, the prime minister appeared to disagree with Britain’s top police officer about the adequacy of current laws.
The Labour MP Diana Johnson, who chairs the home affairs committee, asked what Sunak would say to the Metropolitan police commissioner, “who says at the moment law enforcement do not have the powers that they need to combat hateful extremism?”
The prime minister replied: “Of course, we continue in dialogue with them. Where there are gaps in the law, we’re happy to address and look at those.
“But we do believe at the moment the police do have the powers to arrest those who are inciting violence or racial hatred, there is no place on our streets for that type of behaviour and we will work extensively to clarify the guidance to officers on the ground so they are aware fully about the powers and tools that are available to them to make sure these people feel the force of the law.”
