Court: |
City of London Magistrates’ – Court 3 |
Hearing date: |
Thursday, 10th June 2021 |
Bench (DJ or JPs) |
Lay Bench |
Charged with: |
Breached S14 on 1/9/20 in Parliament Square |
Represented by: |
Self |
Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.
|
The Section 14 on 1/9/20 was similar to all other S14s for the September Rebellion. Its 3 conditions were:
Defendant’s main argument was necessity, so it was doomed to fail. She also went for the more legitimate argument that she couldn’t go to Parliament Square Gardens because it was already full. This failed because she did not say that to the arresting officer. She did go for the S14 to be unlawful because it contravened her human rights in Articles 10 and 11. This is because Parliament Square Gardens was far too small to hold all the protesters under Covid-19 rules (less than 1,400). So most protesters either had to break the Covid-19 rules or go home. This was overturned because Assistant Commissioner Rolfe had showed proportionality in allowing XR to protest where they had asked to, assuming they had estimated the total number would fit in that area under Covid-19 rules.
|
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, |
Guilty 9 mths c/d; £500 costs; £22 v/s |
Please add anything else relevant.
|
The bench took a lot of advice from the prosecutor, more than from the Legal Advisor. The lead magistrate had never done an XR case before and was confused from the start to do a joint trial (Mr. Barnett was tried at the same time even though the arrest dates were different). It did allow A.C. Rolfe to be on cvp once for both trials, thereby reducing the costs. |
Charge
Outcome
Court date