Section 14 - Not Guilty (2): 24/01/20

Court date


 City Magistrates Court

Hearing date:


Bench (DJ or JPs)

 Magistrates Bench

Charged with:

 S14 on 20/04/19

Represented by:


Please outline key points in prosecution and defense cases.

The prosecution outlined the case. Defendant was arrested under S14 on 20/04/19 at Waterloo Bridge at 8.20pm.  The arresting officer’s statement was read out and included that wording “she [the defendant] was told she could continue her protest at Hyde Park or Marble Arch.” 

Acting Inspector Johnson reviewed and extended the S14 and provided standard reasoning.  Cross examined by a defence lawyer for the co-witness and asked to clarify the S 14 instructions. Johnson clarifies stay on the bridge and get arrested, leave the area or go to Marble arch to protest. Defence asked “if they went to some other place, Trafalgar Square or Hyde Park for instance, to protest would they be committing an offence?” She said yes they would be arrested. Defence also pressed Johnson about her decision on alternative place to protest: was the section 14 the best option; why didn’t she just put in a short time-limited S14 or obstruction notice, which would have cleared the bridge.  She continued to say that her decision seemed to her to be the best for public and protesters.

The defendant said she had not seen the BWV this was shown and it could be heard that the arresting officer gave her the instruction, including that she “could continue her protest at Hyde Park or Marble Arch.” 

 The defendant took the witness box and gave an impassioned and informed ‘necessity’ statement about her history addressing climate change and the reasons for this.  She used the analogy of a ship approaching an iceberg.  She was made aware of the technicality that she had been sent to Hyde Park as well as Marble Arch, and had she gone to Marble arch she could have been arrested, which was a flaw in the S14 instruction.  However she maintained that it did not affect her decision not to move, so would not use it.  It was subsequently brought to light again by the other defendant’s lawyer and then in the Judges summing up, when she declared the defendant not guilty as the instruction contravened the S14 order and could have led to an unlawful arrest had she gone to Hyde park.


Was defence evidence submitted in writing?



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

 Yes and she was cross examined

What was the verdict?

 Not Guilty

What was the sentence?


What costs were awarded?

 The defendant was allowed to submit a claim for her travel costs.