Section 14 - Guilty: 09/12/19

Court date



City of London   Court 2

Hearing date:



Bench (DJ or JPs)


DJ Kenyon

Charged with:


Section 14 public order act, Waterloo bridge, April 16th

Represented by:



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?



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







What was the verdict?



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?



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