Section 14 - Guilty (2): 06/01/20

Court date



City of London

Hearing date:



Bench (DJ or JPs)


District Judge Barnes

Charged with:

S14  Waterloo Bridge 21/04/19

Represented by

Self rep

Please outline prosecution and defence case(s).


CPS outlined the case for prosecution: Acting Inspector Johnson Reviewed the S14 on the 19th.  Arresting Officer PC Armstrong was not in court but BWV was shown.  Johnson presented the TFL 500,000 travellers affected, 55 busses delayed and St Thomas’s Hospital and Victoria Coach Station affected. She described the scene on the bridge: people, plants and trees and skateboard ramp.  She claimed that this had severely affected people and traffic trying to cross the bridge and severely disrupted the life of the community. She also gave her reasoning for signposting Marble Arch as an alternative protest site and the three options of Marble Arch, leaving the protest or being arrested.

The defendant cross examined Johnson.  He said that he accepted that the process of the arrest in itself lawful.  He questioned the alternative site as being not the protest he wanted to be on.  He wanted ‘Action Now’, which is why he had chosen the bridge. He questioned the officers statement that the people were obstructed. Both were rejected by Johnson and later by the Judge.

The defendant gave evidence from the witness box about his involvement in XR.  The fact that climate change was killing people now around the world and in the UK as a result of air pollution.  He talked about the effects now and dangers of accelerating global warming.  He talked about his grandchildren and the threat to their existence and how that created the necessity.  He stated he was saving lives.

The Judge in summing up accepted the police reasoning that serious disruption was occurring and that was the stated purpose of the XR protest.   He rejected the proposition that Waterloo was any different in its protest objectives and was part of the overall ‘This Is An Emergency’ protest. He rejected the plea of necessity on the basis that this was not an imminent but a future threat and “any reasonable person would not have remained on the bridge when asked to move by the police”.


Was defence evidence submitted in writing?



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

Yes but was not cross examined.

What was the verdict?



What was the sentence?


£150 fine (£800 including court costs and surcharge)

What costs were awarded?


Court costs were £620 + £30