Section 14 - Guilty: 13/07/21

Charge
Outcome
Court date

Court:

 

COL court 1

Hearing date:

 

13/7

Bench (DJ or JPs)

 

JP Woodcock

Charged with:

 

S!4

Represented by:

 

  1. Self rep
  2. Jenny Winter (BIRDS)

Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.

 

 

Judge:  “Sect 14 on 2nd Sept. lawful – based heavily on direction of 1st Sept.”

Pointed out that he had just had a case where he had decided that the evidence of Deputy District Commissioner Rolfe and  re S14 and had agreed that it was lawful.

JW: ‘ I’m sure that you are not saying that you will find both defendants guilty’ (approx words)

Judge:  “ Of course”

Prosecution : explained  that one officer had not been found but they were trying to find him

Judge: asked Mikey if she wanted  the officer to be in court

Mikey:  said that she wanted to clarify with him a matter of geography

Judge: agreed and prosecution kept looking for officer

Then gave a summary of DCC Rolfe’s S14 statements re parliament square .

Quoted Zeiglar-right to protest and right of assembly ‘not a trump card ‘ need to think of the rights of others

Para 63-65 Zeiglar –agreed by supreme court

Consider location and how it affects others

Case of Thaker (I think) – removed necessity

 

 Checked if Mikey had received a copy of Rolfe’s statement. Said ‘No’ so he instructed that she should be given this.

DCC Rolfe: (on video link)

  • Her position to make decisions
  • Adopts  the aforementioned statements as  her evidence
  • Impact on Central London
  • Position by important roads
  • Westminster Bridge/St.Thomas hospital
  • Info from GLA and local authorities  about impact on waste collection/ buses etc
  • S14 wouldn’t affect protesting elsewhere in London
  • Rules about  processions at Trafalgar Square

 

Mikey (moved to defence council seat and addressed DCC Rolf

She asked R a variety of questions about those who might be affected , particularly civil servants, tourists   and schools and the fact that they were not back at the time. She also asked R is she had looked at quantitative data and whether  there was evidence that the House had been affected by noise in previous demonstrations.

DCC Rolfe:  replied that she read reports for her information. She also said that she was planning in case schools were back, that there were lots of other users apart from tourists and that she had made no restrictions on noise.

( I have the actual questions and answers if you need them)

Judge: Asked R how far away from the square would it be acceptable for protests to take place

R:  to provide an exhaustive description of areas included would have been impossible

Mikey questioned arresting officer: (on video)

Asked him about the cordon –said he wasn’t part of it and that he was in a different part of the square- couldn’t remember the exact road she was on when he arrested her

Mikey questioned by prosecution council.

Worked as economist for DEFRA- evidence related people

Buddhist interconnectedness of all things –work to eliminate suffering

Quoted David Attenborough

Most vulnerable-most affected- but did not cause it

Had lots of facts and figures about climate change

Sitting in the road was a way of saying that it is a crises-personal symbolic action

Was meditating in a road that did not block access to parliament

There had been an interfaith vigil in the square with Arch Bishop of Canterbury

Statues in Parliament Square to Gandhi and Mandela –civil disobedience

Hansard said no disruption of business

Emergency services used to dealing with changes in routes

Prosecutor:  emphasized the disruption to ambulances and risk to lives

 

 

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?

 

Not to my knowledge

 

 

 

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

 

See above

What was the verdict?

 

Guilty

What was the sentence?

 

9 month C.D

What costs were awarded?

 

£322 Prosecution asked for £460