|
Court:
|
City of London Court 2 |
|
Hearing date:
|
9.12.19 |
|
Bench (DJ or JPs)
|
DJ Kenyon |
|
Charged with:
|
Section 14 public order act, Waterloo bridge, April 16th |
|
Represented by:
|
Birds |
|
Please outline prosecution and defense case(s).
|
CPS ( Mr Barrowclough ) case :- quoting James v DPP case . serious public disorder caused by the protest , and that Ch Insp Mc Millan’s response was proportionate Ch Insp Mc Millan on stand . read out his statement . outlined the disruption to transport , quoting bus numbers , TFL diversions , and estimates of the number of people affected . Talked about the cost to construction sites , and to local businesses . CPS to McM :- asked about length of condition , McM replied as he usually does , that no time condition was imposed, but situation was kept under constant review Defence solicitor to McM . asked about the XR/police initial meeting . She questioned him on whether or not XR had communicated to McM the nature of what they were going to do – she suggested that the protest was a political one , and that the police have a duty to facilitate free political speech Judge overruled , saying not police duty to do other than police the protest Asked him what the police had done to organise things so that free speech can operate – McM saying not police duty . She suggested that the police could have organised diversions in advance etc She suggested that by the time defendant was arrested , just after midnight , people could have found alternative means of avoiding the area and therefore the disruption would be less – McM countered that in a 24 hour city at midnight there was still serious disruption , deliveries etc She suggested that due to the media interest , people had time to make alternative arrangements and so avoid the area , again limiting the disruption , McM countered with his example of the nurse who couldn’t sleep , that he mentioned last week She suggested that the bridge as a location was an XR chosen iconic site – questioning the status of M Arch as an iconic location – McM countered that M Arch more iconic than the bridge . Judge moved her on She suggested that there was a big pollution drop as a result of choosing the bridge , McM said didn’t know . She suggested that police imposed conditions as a punitive measure due to public concern rather that considering it on grounds of safety , McM disagreed Questioned him on the rights of the protestors , rather than just taking about the public rights . She quoted articles 10 and 11 . McM countered saying they are qualified rights Questioned him on A1P1 , the public property rights CPS objected to her contention that McM mentioned this previously in an inconsistent way .( this referring to the judgements last Tuesday ) Judge allowed Defence solicitor to put the question to him . He says he has never misrepresented this , says he has always tried to balance the rights of both . He referred to last week , saying that he had misspoke about the property rights Judge questioning McM , asked if he though there were any less prescriptive procedures he could have put in place . He countered that his officers were fully trained in the procedures , and that he had to take into account implications on other forces strengths . He rejected the other locations as being not iconic . He rejected the numbers and the time options as being unworkable , so no option other than M Arch . CPS read out the arresting officers statement ( PC`Curry ) .
------------- Defendant pleads not guilty . Defence solicitor to defendant :- Asked him to give his account of the day . Defendant talked about his belief in the cause , and the urgency of the action needed . Alternative options don’t work , the climate accords between governments produce nothing in terms of real action . Judge to defendant , asking how imminent the threat is – defendant replied he would see this in his lifetime . Defence solicitor closing statement , two issues to be addressed One is that McM has not given sufficient weight to rights of protestors under the HR articles , that his decision was not proportionate , and was an illegitimate interference with article 10 and 11 rights Quoting the Ziegler case , para 83 . Judge replied that McM’s defence of the M Arch option showed proportionality , Defence solicitor repeated assertion that the choice of the bridge had a significant reduction in pollution Two is that of Necessity - Defence solicitor arguing that there is a defence of duress on defendants part .. she suggests that he was compelled to act . -------------- CPS closing statement – on Necessity , says that the defence need to submit proof of defendants state of mind re the imminence of harm , which the defendant did not demonstrate in the stand . On McM’s evidence CPS contends that the inspector was very clear on what he said about his reasons for imposing the conditions |
|
Was defence evidence submitted in writing?
|
Yes |
|
Did defence witness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?
|
Yes
Yes
|
|
What was the verdict?
|
Guilty Reasons – accepted McM’s contention that order imposition was proper , and satisfied that McM had acted correctly in nominating M Arch as the alternative site Accepted that any interference with defendants’ rights under HR act were necessary and qualified , as laid out by McM . Accepted that McM had struck the right and fair balance between protestors and public rights Defendant didn’t satisfy judge as to necessity , saying he didn’t produce evidence on the imminent threat |
|
What was the sentence?
|
CPS wants £465 , defence asked for reduction to 360 and three months to pay Judge went with 400 plus the 20 surcharge , and 9 months conditional |
|
What costs were awarded?
|
n/a |
|
Please add anything else relevant.
|
Judge questioned the wording of the charge at start of the trial CPS asked to read out the charge – judge wants a formal application to be made , so charge amended Judge , a few times , stopped the Defence solicitor from questioning the defendant on his beliefs ,or at least told her that the point had been made . Defence solicitor argued at length on Necessity and that defendant had met the criteria , eg defendant had a reasonable belief in the threat of harm , that it isn’t for the court to rule on whether there is a climate emergency , but to rule on whether he had a reasonable belief Judge , in summing up spoke at length about McM’s evidence , going through all the points he had made saying she was satisfied with what she had heard him offer in evidence |
Charge
Outcome
Court date