[6] The Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the act sets out a self-contained statutory compensation scheme which does not extend to cover consequential losses.

This section now reads: (1) Where a house, shop, or building in [a police area] has been injured or destroyed, or the property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, such compensation as hereinafter mentioned shall be paid out of [the police fund] of [the area] to any person who has sustained loss by such injury, stealing, or destruction; but in fixing the amount of such compensation regard shall be had to the conduct of the said person, whether as respects the precautions taken by him or as respects his being a party or accessory to such riotous or tumultuous assembly, or as regards any provocation offered to the persons assembled or otherwise.

Section 5(1) now reads: The words in square brackets were substituted by Schedule 9 to the Police Act 1964.

The words "and the amount required to meet the said payments (in this Act referred to as riot expenses), shall be raised as part of the police rate" at the end were repealed by Part I of Schedule 10 to the Police Act 1964.

It read: "in the case of the plundering, damage, or destruction of any ship or boat stranded or in distress on or near the shore of any sea or tidal water, or of any part of the cargo or apparel of such ship or boat, by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, whether on shore or afloat."

The words "plundering, damage" in the penultimate place, and the words "and as if, in the case of such ship, boat, or cargo not being in any police district, such plundering, damage, or destruction took place in the nearest police district" at the end, were repealed by the same Schedule.

[8] In 2002, Lord Bradshaw moved and then withdrew an amendment to the Police Reform Bill to repeal this Act.