Cameron Bell, a 23-year-old care worker, has been handed a nine-month prison sentence for her proximity to a disturbance in Tamworth.

Walking home in her work uniform, she found herself near a group causing unrest and recorded a TikTok video of the situation. Despite not participating in any violence, nor encouraging it, the court has decided to treat her presence as grounds for a harsh sentence.

The prosecution presented footage showing Bell recording the events on her phone, with the judge branding this as grounds for violent disorder. Yet, there is no indication that her actions added fuel to the flames.

Bell’s lawyer argued that she was "on the periphery" of events. If anything, her involvement was passive—a bystander caught up in the wrong crowd at the wrong time. Bell’s sentencing is a stark reminder of how justice in these cases can be applied unevenly, treating a young woman with no history of violence as if she was a direct participant.

Bell admitted violent disorder in September. Commentators online have criticised the legal advice given to many of those arrested in response to the disorder in August

Passing sentence, the judge told Bell that members of the group were armed and could have been intent on further violence.

This decision is troubling for multiple reasons. For one, it sends a chilling message: being present during public disorder—even if one is uninvolved in any violence—can be deemed sufficient to warrant a prison sentence. It risks criminalising passivity and fails to acknowledge the complexity of real-world scenarios where innocent bystanders can easily be mistaken for participants.

As Cameron Bell sees out her sentence, we should all be asking if this is truly justice or simply a reactionary punishment designed to make an example, without due regard for individual circumstances.