Section 14 - Dismissed: 04/12/19

Court date



City of London Magistrates Court 2

Hearing date:



Bench (DJ or JPs)


Judge Booty

Charged with:


Failure to comply with Section 14 order

Represented by:


Garden Court Chambers  - Barrister

Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.


McMillan’s statement

McMillan imposed conditions under S14 – waterloo bridge assembly at 18:55 on 15 April. McMillan made a physical assessment when attending Waterloo bridge that the protest was causing serious disruption to life of the community.

Defence question to McMillan

Defendants arrest took place at 00:25 on 16 April. McMillan was at the site until approx. 3am. Defence argued that surely the disruption would have minimised significantly at night time, and therefore the condition should have been reviewed and potentially withdrawn. McMillan advised the condition was in constant review and although traffic had eased, he believed there was still a serious disruption overnight, so the condition remained in place.

No end time indicated on the form, the section was to be under continuous review, later there was a decision of 24 hour review from first section.

Prosecution question to McMillan

McMillian stated the time for people to consider / respond to section differs depending on situation, there is no specific time frame. May get a short time to consider if previously engaged with officer, seen another officer engage, if the person tries to walk away from the officer


Body cam footage shown


Prosecution key points

Body worn makes clear that defendant had no intention to leave the bridge and made a conscious decision to remain. Defendant saw officers giving cautions and arresting other people, so was clearly aware of what has happening

Defendant was aware she had to leave the area, and she told the officer that she did understand, but said she can’t move away

Defence key points

The officer didn’t do all she could to ensure defendant understood. Arresting officer was listening in and watching to other officers before approaching the defendant, when she eventually turns, the reason it wasn’t clear is because there was some hesitation on the officers part. Angelica Bartilla – arresting officer didn’t clearly specify the terms of the section 14, or the reason it was in place. Mentioned Marble Arch but was unclear and very vague

Believed at the time (and was told by someone) she would be given three warnings and after the last warning would have two minutes to make a decision before being arrested

Struggled to hear with the noise, the officer did not speak English as a first language, did not fully understand the caution



Before sentencing the judge made the following comment:

The Prosecution must prove the case, they do that by providing evidence and I make a decision based on that evidence. As (the defendant) is someone of good character I can believe she is telling the truth. I must consider the following: Was the direction given by the senior officer at the scene – yes. Was the order lawful – were the right considerations made – clear to me that during the protests there was rights of the public that had to be balanced with the rights to protest. McMillan gave evidence that he was willing to balance those rights, so it was a fair order. The order / condition then needs to be communicated. The defendant was very clear, and very honest, make no argument about the fact the police officer wanted her to move, and the defendant didn’t want to stop protesting. Defendant has explained she said she understood but did so as good manners, and I accept that, the defendant strikes me as someone who would go out of her way to not offend. The defendant said she would have gone and joined her friends if they were in marble arch. The arresting officer makes an assumption she had already been told of the condition, goes down half the route of explaining again. Am I satisfied that she knew she had the option to go to Marble Arch to continue? I am not.


Was defence evidence submitted in writing?





Did defence witness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?


Yes and cross examined

Defendant gave a very passionate and emotional defence



What was the verdict?



What was the sentence?



What costs were awarded?


£110 travel costs awarded

Please add anything else relevant.


Amazing! Clearly a sympathetic judge who felt the defendant was of extremely good character, very honest and trustworthy so took her word as particularly strong evidence