Section 14 - Guilty: 22/10/19

Court date



City of London magistrates    court 2

Hearing date:



Bench (DJ or JPs)



Defendant 1:



Charged with:


Section 14 Public Order violation 

Represented by:



Please outline prosecution and defense case(s).


CPS and police ( Superintendent Duncan Mc Millan ( chief inspector at time of arrests ) ) –


  • 15.4.19 , waterloo bridge , during the easter XR protest
  • defendant was arrested under above order for not complying with request to move from the bridge , and going to the designated official area at marble arch , after being informed .
  • marble arch was chosen as being large in area , accessible , and iconic .
  • the order was necessary , and proportionate , given that serious disruption was being caused . There was no time limit placed on the order – continuous review according to situation
  • Sup Mc Millan made the order according to the protocol , quoting serios disruption to buses and traffic . He met organisers beforehand , to discuss and negotiate .
  • Sup Mc Millan said all police attempts to clear the carriageway were rejected .
  • The police officer in this case was officer PC Essom .The PC’s  body cam footage was shown to the court
  • PC suggested that Defendant   was deliberately singing  as a way of blocking out the police request , and was an act of deliberate defiance

defence –

  • defendant maintains her rights under human rights act articles 10 and 11
  • solicitor asked Sup Mc Millan whether he had exhausted all options , he said yes .
  • HJA, cross examining PC Essom , asked him if he had specifically mentioned marble arch , he said , no , that he had said “ elsewhere “ ,
  • HJA asked PC Essom if he was aware of the 5 step warning procedure , and he said no


Was defense evidence submitted in writing?


Unsure –but I think the judge had access to their statements



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


  • Yes , and yes . Defendant  maintained that she was singing , and looking at her friend , and wasn’t really aware of the paper being shown to her or what the officer was saying  . she had been singing for a long time , and had not just started doing so .
  • She maintained that she was aware that she might be arrested
  • Defendant , and the solicitor gave a very eloquent and passionate account of her dedication to the climate change movement , outlining all the work that she had done , and continues to do , and her clear sense of how this work is for the benefit of the future of her children , grandchildren , and everyone else


What was the verdict?


  • Guilty . The judge said that singing  while being addressed by a police officer was a choice made by the defendant , and did not constitute a valid defence .
  • On the other conditions , he agreed with the CPS and police

What was the sentence?


  • CPS asked for a 9 month conditional discharge , and £550 fine . 
  • The solicitor asked for this to be reconsidered . Judge reduced fine to £300 , plus £20 ta  , payable with three months to pay  and the discharge reduced to 6 months

What costs were awarded?


  • As above

Please add anything else relevant.


  • There was a lot of talk about Necessity – which I took to mean Defendants defence being partly based on her  burning sense of a need to attend the protest – presumably it’s a legal term – the judge dint take into account when summing up