Section 14 - Guilty: 10/06/21

Charge
Outcome
Court date

Court:

 

City of London Magistrates’ – Court 3

Hearing date:

 

Thursday, 10th June 2021

Bench (DJ or JPs)

 

Lay Bench

Charged with:

 

Breached S14 on 2/9/20 in Parliament Square

Represented by:

 

Adeela Khan (EFBW)

Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.

 

The Section 14 on 2/9/20 was written by Assistant Commissioner Rolfe, similar to all other S14s for the September Rebellion. Its 3 conditions were:

  • Location. Protest is limited to Parliament Square Gardens (called the Grassy Area by police), excluding the footpath on the east side (the side adjoining the Palace of Westminster).
  • Duration. Limited to 0800-1900 hrs on 1/9/20.
  • Capacity. The maximum number of protesters allowed under Covid-19 social distancing rules.

The first defence really didn’t get anywhere. Defendant said he didn’t know where he could protest, but he had ignored the police officer when she pointed to where he could protest. The bench said he wilfully ignored the officer; he could have looked to see where she pointed.

Ms. Khan tried for restriction of human rights: the allotted area for protesting was far too small to allow social distancing. A.C. Rolfe said that XR, in their Risk Assessment, had suggested Parliament Square Gardens as a place to protest, so she granted it, assuming they knew it could hold all the protesters. The bench accepted that.

Ms. Khan also went for the continuous protest argument. She said that XR had called it “Rebellion Goes to Parliament” with events over a week. There were people there overnight, the tree sitters. She did not mention the prayer vigil, but CPS did not say the tree sitters were StopHS2, not XR (an argument that got Larch Maxey off on his breach S14 charge). Rolfe countered with how XR had split their Action Plan into separate days, also the S14 for the previous day (day#1) had stopped the assembly at 1900 hrs, and no-one was arrested for protesting after that time. The bench accepted that.

 

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?

Yes

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

Yes

Yes

What was the verdict,
sentence, costs?

Guilty
18 mths c/d; £500 costs; £22 v/s

(he had a previous protesting conviction whose conditional discharge had expired)

P.T.O.

Please add anything else relevant.

 

Ms. Khan should have won on overcrowding because A.C. Rolfe said she was told that there were 300-400 protesters on the first day, the day before. In fact there were more like 10,000 protesters and Rolfe should have seen that on any news that evening. Ms. Khan did not follow up on that lie. I find it too convenient to be told of the number of protesters: surely she had a duty to watch the TV and social media news, all of which would have showed more than 1,400 protesters?

ALSO, this is the first time I’ve heard her mention a Gold Commander. Rolfe, as the senior police officer, would issue an S14 before the day - called a pre-event S14 in this trial. The Gold Commander, Dep. Commander Jane Connors [please check that], as the senior officer on the ground could issue/change it on the day, called a reactive S14 in this trial. So, Rolfe, when asked if she’d been told that expected numbers had been exceeded, replied that was the Gold Commander’s responsibility. She set the strategic operation details for each day. For instance, it was not Rolfe’s job to ensure Covid-19 rules were followed, it was the Gold Commander’s.  It was the Gold and Silver Commanders that saw the CCTV footage, not Rolfe.

So it may be a good idea to call in the Gold Commander as witness to answer the overcrowding question and get the S14s overturned.