Section 14 - Guilty: 18/12/19

Court date



City of London

Hearing date:


18.12.19  (day 2 of trial) 

Bench (DJ or JPs)


DJ Snow  

Charged with:


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

Represented by:



Please outline prosecution and defence case(s).


Defendant cross examined by defence solicitor 

Defendant explaining his aims for being on the protest, to provoke a response by refusing to leave. Response he hoped for would be through gaining attention from the media to pressurise politicians and get the concerns raised up in the public consciousness. 

As a farmer he sees the crisis in the food growing system, loss of topsoil, weather changes

He spoke of both local and international issues, citing the Arab spring revolt having roots in the wheat crisis.

He spoke of people dying at the moment, giving other examples of other, less talked about side effects of climate change, eg the increase of mosquito borne diseases.

He spoke of our reliance on insect and pollinator numbers, and how they are being affected.

He spoke about the need for a fundamental economic re-organisation to cope with the crisis, and how he in his small way, through his actions at the protest, feels that he is making a small step towards this.

He cites as evidence for this, the impact on borough councils from the national government action, and how this would not have happened without XR action.

He stated the work he had done on pursuing concerns through the usual channels, letters to MPs etc.



CPS Miss Bryan cross examined defendant, very briefly


Defence solicitor gave closing submission. questioning whether Ch Insp Mc Millan was the officer at the scene at the time of the S14 condition, and that the court cannot be satisfied that the S14 was lawful. She asked judge to look at previous evidence about the silver and bronze command logs  

Second submission re the clarity of the condition – suggesting that Ch Insp Mc Millan had given evidence quoting the M arch “area “. suggesting that it was v unclear as to where the protestors could legally protest.

Ch Insp Mc Millan had said that there was “ no map “ of the M Arch area .

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?



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





What was the verdict?





Judge talked about the good character of all the defendants, and agreed that they have no propensity for criminality 

Taking Jones and Ziegler references into account

Satisfied that the evidence around giving the S14 order was Ch Insp Mc Millan’s and his alone, therefore his evidence is lawful 

Re the clarity of the S14 condition, judge doesn’t agree with defence. In his judgement its very clear. 

Mentioned the 55 bus routes being diverted/ cancelled on the 15th April, mentioned the disruption at waterloo bus station, and the construction site impact re deliveries, highway repairs being cancelled, businesses being affected, Waterloo a main artery etc . 

On interference with the protestors articles 10 and 11, judge is satisfied that the S14 was lawfully imposed, and that there were no other less disruptive means available at the police disposal 

What was the sentence?


 9 month conditional discharge, 300 plus 20 

CPS was asking 775, defence asking for 1550 split between the defendants according to the CPS guidelines – judge saying substantial resources have been used 

What costs were awarded?



Please add anything else relevant.


 Long submission from Mr de Natas ( ? ) defence for other defendants , about definition of “ place “ and  “ scene “ ,  ( which I didn’t understand ) .

Seemed to be about the senior officer having a purview of the scene and being unable to tell who was arrestable, and not arrestable if they are asked to move to another location  

On this the judge’s verdict was that this does not affect future assemblies. the chief inspector is allowed to impose condition based on place, numbers and duration. and so protestors can be legally advised to go to another place – the “scene and place “distinction not relevant. If parliament had wanted to conflate these two, it could have done but didn’t, so the legislation empowers officer to move protest to another location