Section 14 - Guilty: 25-27/11/19

Court date

Court: City Magistrates Court

Hearing date: 25-27/11/19

Bench (DJ or JPs): DJ Robinson

Charged with: S14 x2

Represented by: Self representing

Defence and Prosecution cases: 

The defendant was arrested in April on Waterloo Bridge (the dates on the first day were not recorded.  The defendant was tried alongside 4 other defendants.  Two had representation, which was helpful to the defendant.

Day 1: Long discussions between Mr Wainwright, the District Judge (DJ)and the Prosecutor about disclosure of police logs and other information, and whether Section 8 requests seeking disclosure had been made before the deadline. 

The Prosecution intended to call 4 senior police officers and 2 arresting officers as witnesses.  Two senior officers and 1 arresting officer appeared on Day 1 and it was decided that the evidence of 1 other senior officer could be taken as a written report rather than in person.   Leaves 1 more senior officer and one arresting officer still be called.

The lines of defence that will be presented by the defendants were:

#1 – lawfulness of the Section 14, proportionality, necessity

#2 – knowledge of the Section 14 order, injury

#3 – lawfulness, proportionality, necessity

#4 – lawfulness, necessity, knowledge

#5 – lawfulness, proportionality, procedural issues, necessity

Extensive questioning of Chief Supt McMillan by Mr Wainwright who tried to imply that the Section 14 was unlawful because the decision to make the order had been made by Silver and Gold Command in advance and this was “rubber stamped” by Bronze command on site.  Other defence arguments about evidence had to do with hearsay evidence as opposed to factual primary source evidence for the disruption caused by the rebellion.  Also disputes about edited or unedited bodyworn video camera evidence and the instruction to go to an alternative protest site, and the case was dropped for one of the defendants as a result.*

Defendant gave a long statement in his defence.  He brought up the issues of climate change and the lack of government response, the dangers of the rollout of 5G and other electrical wave dangers, the loss of biodiversity and extent of pollution.  He used this to prove that it was necessary for him to be on Waterloo Bridge and to stay on Waterloo Bridge as an effective protest site and a site that was crucial in the announcement of a climate emergency by the UK Government.  He quoted Caroline Lucas and John McDonald in his defence.


Was defence evidence submitted in writing? No

Did defence witness(s) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined? No

What was the verdict? Guilty

What was the sentence? 9 months CD

What costs were awarded? Court costs of £496 + £20