Section 14 - Dismissed: 25-27/11/19

Court date

Court: City Magistrates Court

Hearing date: 25-27/11/19

Bench (DJ or JPs): DJ Robinson

Charged with: S14

Represented by: Bindman's

Prosecution and defence cases:

The defendant was arrested in April on Waterloo Bridge (the dates on the first day were not recorded.  The defendant was tried alongside 4 other defendants.  Two had representation, which was helpful to the defendant.

Day 1: Long discussions between Mr Wainwright, the District Judge (DJ)and the Prosecutor about disclosure of police logs and other information, and whether Section 8 requests seeking disclosure had been made before the deadline. 

The Prosecution intended to call 4 senior police officers and 2 arresting officers as witnesses.  Two senior officers and 1 arresting officer appeared on Day 1 and it was decided that the evidence of 1 other senior officer could be taken as a written report rather than in person.   Leaves 1 more senior officer and one arresting officer still be called.

The lines of defence that will be presented by the defendants were:

#1 – lawfulness of the Section 14, proportionality, necessity

#2 – knowledge of the Section 14 order, injury

#3 – lawfulness, proportionality, necessity

#4 – lawfulness, necessity, knowledge

#5 – lawfulness, proportionality, procedural issues, necessity

Extensive questioning of Chief Supt McMillan by Mr Wainwright who tried to imply that the Section 14 was unlawful because the decision to make the order had been made by Silver and Gold Command in advance and this was “rubber stamped” by Bronze command on site.  Other defence arguments about evidence had to do with hearsay evidence as opposed to factual primary source evidence for the disruption caused by the rebellion.  Also disputes about edited or unedited bodyworn video camera evidence and the instruction to go to an alternative protest site and the exact location of the site.

 The defence for #4 GS argued that the instruction to go to Marble Arch was not clearly defined in the information given under the notice, that the location was too vague and the arresting officers did not communicate the order correctly and so had no case to answer.


Was defence evidence submitted in writing? No

Did defence witness(s) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined? No

What was the verdict? No case to answer. Case dropped

What costs were awarded? Not in the court but might have been claimed after