Regulated riots and the hypothetical person of reasonable firmness
A riot needs 12 people, a common purpose and violence that would frighten a bystander who need not exist. When rioters damage property, the local police body pays, within strict limits.
In England and Wales, riot is defined by section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986: 12 or more people using or threatening unlawful violence for a common purpose, in a way that would make a person of reasonable firmness fear for their safety. That person is hypothetical and need not be present. The same definition triggers the Riot Compensation Act 2016, under which the local Police and Crime Commissioner compensates uninsured owners and insurers for direct property damage, up to £1 million per claim. The scheme dates back to the Riot Act 1714, is rarely used outside major disorder, and refuses claimants who took part in or helped cause the riot.
Legislation, judgments, the 2013 Home Office review and Police and Crime Commissioner decisions were checked on 29 October 2026. The section on staged riots is our analysis, not a court finding. This is legal research, not legal advice.
What makes a riot
Riot is the most serious offence in Part 1 of the Public Order Act 1986. Every element has to be present, and the numbers matter.
Statute
Twelve people, one purpose, frightening violence
A riot needs 12 or more people who are present together and who use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose. Their conduct, taken together, must be such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety.
The 12 do not have to act at the same moment, the common purpose can be inferred from what they do, and a riot can happen in a private place as well as a public one.
“Violence” includes violent conduct towards property, not only towards people. It is not limited to conduct that causes injury or damage: throwing a missile that falls short counts.
Only those who actually use unlawful violence for the common purpose are guilty of riot. Someone who only threatens is counted towards the 12 but is not guilty of riot, although they may be guilty of a lesser offence. Each person must intend to use violence or be aware that their conduct may be violent.
The three offences share the reasonable-firmness test but differ in the number of people and whether a common purpose is needed. The Court of Appeal has stressed that violent disorder, unlike riot, needs no common purpose.
Riot charges are brought when prosecutors consider the higher threshold can be proved. In January 2025, for example, the CPS authorised riot charges against 11 more people over disorder in Ely, Cardiff, in May 2023; it said 31 others had already been charged. Charges are allegations, not findings of guilt.
The “person of reasonable firmness” is a yardstick, not a witness. The law asks what the violence was like, not whether anyone was actually frightened.
Statute
Section 1(4)
No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
So a riot can be committed where nobody is watching, for example inside a closed building at night. The same rule applies to violent disorder. The question is whether the violence, taken together, would make a hypothetical person of reasonable firmness fear for their safety if they were there.
The Court of Appeal explained that riot, violent disorder and affray target violent or threatening conduct that would frighten ordinary members of the public going about their lawful business, if they happened to come upon it.
At common law, Field v Metropolitan Police Receiver (1907) set out five ingredients of riot. They included at least three people and force or violence displayed so as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage.
Lower down the scale, section 5 works differently. It needs conduct within the hearing or sight of a real person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Riot, the most serious offence, needs no real bystander at all. Our page on aggressive begging covers section 5.
Paying for riot damage out of public funds is more than 300 years old. The idea was that the local community answers for disorder in its area.
Statute (historical), as described by the Supreme Court
The Riot Act 1714
The Riot Act 1714 made it a felony punishable by death for 12 or more people unlawfully assembled to fail to disperse after an official read a proclamation, which is where “reading the Riot Act” comes from. Section 6 made the inhabitants of the “hundred”, a local administrative area, liable for buildings that rioters pulled down.
Statute (historical), as described by the Supreme Court
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886
The 1886 Act moved liability from the hundred to the police authority. It allowed insurers to claim in their own name and told the authority to have regard to the claimant’s conduct, including precautions, being a party or accessory to the riot, and provocation.
The police did not have to be at fault. In Pitchers v Surrey County Council, about a riot by soldiers at Witley Camp during the First World War, the courts held that the right to compensation did not depend on what the police did or failed to do.
The 1886 Act required people to be assembled “riotously and tumultuously”. Small, furtive robberies did not qualify: in J W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police Receiver (1967), a raid by four armed robbers was held not to be tumultuous. The 2016 Act dropped the word “tumultuously” and simply uses the 1986 definition of riot.
Since 6 April 2017, claims are made under the 2016 Act and the 2017 Regulations. The scheme is narrower, capped and tightly timed.
Statute ·
Who can claim, and from whom
A person whose property was damaged, destroyed or stolen in the course of a riot can claim if it was uninsured or not adequately insured, which includes being insured for less than its value or subject to an excess. An insurer that has paid out can also claim. Claims go to the local policing body for the area, usually the Police and Crime Commissioner.
“Riot” has the meaning in section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986, but riots in prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres, hospitals where people are detained under the Mental Health Act, and immigration removal centres are excluded.
The decision-maker awards what is fair and reasonable, up to £1 million per claim. Compensation reflects only the loss directly resulting from the damage, destruction or theft. Consequential loss, such as lost profits, is excluded.
An ordinary claim must normally be made within 43 days starting with the “riot reference date”, which is the date the riot ends; disorder anywhere within 24 hours of the last riot counts as part of the same riot. Supporting details and evidence must arrive within 91 days, or the claim may lapse. Periods outside the claimant’s control can be disregarded.
The authority may refuse a claim or reduce compensation if the claimant, by act or omission, participated in, assisted, encouraged or facilitated the riot or its spread, or contributed directly or indirectly to any damage, destruction or theft during it. It may also do so if the claimant committed a criminal offence relating to the riot. For insurer claims the same tests apply to the insured person.
A claimant can ask the authority to review its decision within 29 days of being notified. After a review, the claimant can appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The Lands Chamber’s procedure rules were amended in 2017 to deal with these appeals.
At about 11.40 pm on 8 August 2011, a gang of youths broke into the Sony DADC distribution warehouse in Enfield, looted it and set it on fire with petrol bombs. The fire destroyed the warehouse and its contents. The trial judge found that the group numbered about 20 to 25.
The courts held that this was a riot for which the police authority had to compensate. The Court of Appeal noted that a riot may take place in private, and that riot can be committed where the only violence is against property.
On compensation, the Supreme Court held unanimously that the 1886 Act covered physical damage only, not consequential losses such as lost profits or rent. It described the scheme as a self-contained regime, not a mirror of the rioters’ liability in tort.
On the night of 14 to 15 February 2002, a riot at Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre in Bedfordshire destroyed almost half of it by fire. The private operators and their insurer claimed against Bedfordshire Police Authority under the 1886 Act. The claim was quantified at about £32 million.
The High Court rejected the claim on the basis that the operators were responsible for order inside the centre. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision: the operators were within “any person” and could claim. Their responsibilities went to the amount of compensation through the conduct proviso, not to whether they could claim at all. The court did not decide how the claim would fare on its facts.
The scheme lies almost dormant between major outbreaks of disorder. The figures below come from official records and are dated.
Official review
Before 2011
The 1981 riots in Toxteth, Brixton, Bristol and elsewhere led to claims totalling £17.2 million. The government met 60% of the worst-affected police authorities’ costs, at a cost to the Exchequer of £6.2 million. The review noted that these figures may include other police costs.
Later uses were smaller. The Brixton riot of 1995 led to claims of £1.39 million. The Metropolitan Police paid on seven occasions between 1995 and 2011, including £565,000 after the student riot at Millbank in 2010, and Greater Manchester Police paid £37,000 after the Oldham riots of 2001.
By August 2013, police authorities had received 3,220 claims from insurers, of which 1,097 had been settled at a public cost of £31.5 million, and 578 from uninsured claimants, of which 391 had been settled at a cost of £3.76 million. In London alone, 1,442 of 2,389 insurer claims had been rejected.
The review put the public cost so far at £35.2 million and said it could grow to £100 million or more. Insurers reported paying £167 million on 2,254 claims of their own. These are 2013 figures, not final totals.
By November 2024, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said it knew of 88 claims worth about £1.9 million across England, and expected both figures to rise. Cleveland had received 39 claims totalling £394,000, with nothing yet paid.
Merseyside’s signed decision of May 2026 gives the fullest public account. The Home Office set the riot reference date as 7 August 2024 and, in October 2024, decided that claims should be handled locally rather than by a national bureau. Of 30 claims worth £709,874.79, 9 were invalid and 3 were duplicates. The 18 valid claims were settled for £272,336.20, against an estimated reserve of £619,921.40. A BBC freedom of information figure reported in 2024 put Merseyside’s claims at £799,000.
The money comes from the policing body’s own budget. Merseyside paid from its insurance reserve and could not seek a Home Office special grant, because the total fell below the qualifying threshold of 1% of core funding, about £3.7 million.
The briefs we were given asked whether 12 people could arrange a fight to meet the legal definition and then claim compensation. This section is our analysis of why the law does not pay for that. It is not guidance and describes no method.
Our analysis
Two sides fighting: one purpose or two?
Riot needs a common purpose; violent disorder does not. In R v NW the trial judge remarked that classic violent disorder often involves one group wanting to fight another, and the Court of Appeal confirmed that violent disorder needs no common purpose.
In our view, two groups fighting each other do not automatically share one purpose, so a six-against-six brawl fits violent disorder far more naturally than riot. But it goes too far to say a fight can never be a riot. If 12 or more people on one side use violence for a shared purpose, that side may satisfy section 1 whatever the other side does. We found no authority deciding the point either way.
One brief argued that a staged fight cannot be a riot because the participants lack “genuine hostility”. That is not the test. Section 6(1) asks only whether a person intends to use violence or is aware that their conduct may be violent. People who really use violence in an arranged fight meet that test. Real violence makes the participants more exposed to prosecution, not less.
Even if a riot were proved, the scheme is built to refuse such a claim. The authority may refuse a claimant who participated in, assisted, encouraged or facilitated the riot, contributed to the damage, or committed an offence relating to the riot. It may refuse any claim it believes is fraudulent to any extent.
A false claim would also be fraud, which carries up to 10 years’ imprisonment, the same maximum as riot. Insured loss is not compensated to the extent it is insured, consequential loss is excluded, and payments are capped.
We found no reported case of anyone manufacturing a riot to claim compensation, under either Act. Decisions by policing bodies are mostly unpublished, so we cannot rule out refused claims we have not seen.
Checking the briefs
This page began from three research briefs. Several of their statements did not match the primary sources.
Accuracy notes
Corrections
Statements in the supplied briefs and what the sources show
Brief said
Sources show
Yarl’s Wood is “Bedfordshire Police Authority v Derek Beaven [2007] EWCA Civ 32”
The case is Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd v Bedfordshire Police Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 1110
The Yarl’s Wood damage was over £40m and nearly bankrupted the police authority
The claim was quantified at about £32 million; we found no source for the bankruptcy claim
The Court of Appeal held the Act applied to prisons
It held only that the private operators of a detention centre could claim; it decided nothing about prisons
Insurer claims are subject to a business turnover threshold
The 2013 review recommended a £2 million turnover limit; neither the Act nor the Regulations contain one
The 2011 riots produced several hundred claims
Police authorities received 3,798 claims by August 2013
4,500–5,000 claims and over £100m paid in London
Public cost was £35.2 million by 2013; £100 million was a projection
The Sony warehouse was attacked by 30–40 youths
The trial judge found about 20 to 25
The deadlines are 42 and 90 days
Those are the statutory minimums; the Regulations give 43 and 91 days, counted from the end of the riot
A staged fight lacks the mental element
Section 6(1) is satisfied by intending or being aware of violence
Opposing factions can never form a common purpose
We found no authority for this as a general rule
Merseyside claims were about £800,000
The PCC’s signed decision records £709,874.79 claimed and £272,336.20 paid
Each correction rests on the judgment, statute, official review or decision cited.
We left out an estimate that the Mitsui decision saved about £80 million, and descriptions of the facts of Field (1907), because we could not check them against a primary source. The common-law test from Field is given as the Court of Appeal summarised it.
Statutes and regulations were read on legislation.gov.uk, and judgments on the National Archives’ Find Case Law service. Claims figures come from the 2013 Home Office review, signed decisions of Police and Crime Commissioners, and one news report of official figures. All were checked on 29 October 2026. This is legal research, not legal advice.
Source register
Sources are numbered in order of first citation; repeated citations keep their number. Source links open in a new tab. A source’s type matters: a campaign statement or personal account is not a judgment. The review date records this page’s source check, not a guarantee of completeness.