Section 14 - Guilty: 18/11/22

Charge
Outcome
Court date

Court:

 

City of London Magistrates

Hearing date:

 

18/11/2022

Bench (DJ or JPs)

 

Deputy D J Turner

Charged with:

 

S14 Wilful Obstruction of Highway- Vauxhall  Bridge Road, 10/04/22

Represented by:

 

Self repped

Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.

 

Charged with co-defendant for failing to comply with a direction to leave following imposition of s14 conditions at an XR protest on 10/04/22. At the start of the trial DJ gave the defendants copies of s14 and commentary on it from Archbold(?), pointed the 3rd note on the section was relevant, and the judgment on James v DPP 2016 and referred Defendants to passages in the judgment re ECHR Arts 10 & 11.

 On court reconvening CPS opened, referred to James and Curcrrean 22 decision stating that despite the Ziegler decision, no requirement to prove proportionality to secure conviction.

Video evidence of both arrests shown, and photograph of area covered by s.14.

Prosecution witness was Inspector Dickinson (Bronze), who imposed the s14 conditions. She gave evidence and was examined by both defendants. She referred to her statement. She was informed by TFL that 92 buses had been rerouted and 3,000 passengers per hour were disrupted by the congestion, London Fire Brigade were impacted by the traffic disruption. The protest was originally on the bridge; a large group of protesters moved and sat down to occupy the junction of Vauxhall Bridge Rd, Millbank and Grosvenor Rd, with banners . She deployed 2 units to speak to the protesters to see if they were going to move. She was mindful of Art 10 & 11 rights pf protesters. She was the most senior officer present at the scene. By 17.09 some protesters had moved to  traffic island and pavements but a group still sat in the road. She contacted Silver, who was not at the protest. She spoke to XR police liaison; they did not say the protesters were moving. At 17.50 satisfied that attempts to persuade the protesters  to leave had not worked, she made a s 14 order to come into force at 18.15, and instructed officers to tell the protesters. She did not include in this that arrest would not happen if protesters moved to pavement; she was not rquired to do this. Officers spoke to protesters to inform them. By 18.15 the junction remained impassable  and arrests started. 31 arrests made by 83 officers. By 18.50 the road was cleared and conditions removed.

Both defendants cross examined her, about what is severe disruption, the recently published UN report , statements by Antonio Gutteres and the decision by UK govt to issue more oil and gas licences. DJ Turner intervened to say no political debate, stick to legal issues.  Defs argued the seriousness of the climate crisis meant the level of disruption was a proportionate response to the climate crisis, that the clearing of protesters from another bridge had eased the congestion before s14 imposed, several people who had been charged from protests on the other bridge had been acquitted in this same court last week, one person had had their case adjourned pending the outcome of an appeal to the High Ct, and their third co-defendant who was in court today had been arrested within minutes of these defendants but had had the charges against them dropped 2 days before. DJ Turner said what happened in other cases before other judges was not of concern unless it was a higher court. He asked CPS to look into why the adjournment mentioned had happened; he had no part in the decision to drop charges against third defendant.

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?

 

Yes

 

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

 Both gave evidence in person and was cross examined by Mr Staton (CPS). Both Defendants gave evidence and were cross-examined. They had no questions of each other. They both agreed they heard their arresting officers.

 

What was the verdict?

 

Guilty of willful obstruction of the highway(no mention of firework offence)

What was the sentence?

 

29months conditional discharge

What costs were awarded?

 

costs £385 +£22 victim surcharge each, payable 50£ per month from 1 January

Please add anything else relevant.

 

Judgment:  s14 was properly imposed as the senior officer satisfied that it was necessary because of serious disruption caused. The duty is on the court to weigh up proportionality. Disruption was serious. Factors laid out in the Ziegler judgment do not help the defendants. Adopting para 38 onwards in judgment in James v DPP, reasonableness and necessity apply to both limbs; the decision to make S14 order and conditions attached were entirely reasonable