I stand by my assessment of the definition of Riot. Taking into consideration my research this evening, we cannot define a riot during the event...it cannot be said that someone is part of a riot. However, they can be tried for the offence of rioting, but for a prosecution to be successful they need to hit points to prove. The hardest one is common purpose, or joint enterprise. The prosecution will need to prove an element of forward planning by a group, which isnt always easy.
So for someone to get a pay out under the Riot (Damages) Act, the exact offender will need to be identified. He will then need to be tried, and that process will lead to a decision about his status as a rioter. If he is found to have been part of a joint enterprise, consisting of 12 or more people (etc, see section 1 POA86), then the victim can make a claim.
If the offender isn't identified as a rioter, the Riot (Damages) Act does not apply.
To get a pay out from the Riot (Damages) Act a person would have to apply to the Police Authority, and the authority would have to inquire as to the truth of the claim. This would require the hiring of extra staff, adding to the massive financial burden that will be facing them when they are required to pay out. This is a payout that police authorities cannot afford, and it should be for the government to ensure that the costs are covered so PAs can focus on the job of policing.
It is much better to have a much larger central pot of money. It would save the Police Authorities a lot of money, which they do not have. It would make it a lot easier for people to claim, as they would not have to go through the courts.
Just a reminder to people that the Executive cannot over rule the Legislature. David Cameron is wrong...his error is in the best interests of those seeking to rebuild their lives and busineses