Section 14 - Guilty: 20/01/22

Charge
Outcome
Court date

Court:

 

Court changed twice due to technical problems 1/2/3

Hearing date:

 

 

Thursday 20/1/22

Bench (DJ or JPs)

 

Bench

 

Charged with:

 

 Sect 14

Represented by:

 

Personal friend  (lawyer)

Please outline key points in prosecution and defense cases.

 

Prosecution

spoke with police officer in charge. Superintendant  Smart

Said that the S14 order was a result of XR history of protest and arrest. Police focusing on protest outside Brazilian embassy, due to back up of traffic and disruption of people going about their business.

2pm police officer in charge redeployed  to Oxford Circus where a structure was being built (lock-on structure) Officers trying to stop glueing on because takes time  to dismantle.

Circle of people clued together.

Busses backed up and very many had to be redirected

Ambulance couldn’t get through

Worked out that protestors would be staying for a long time as had resources such as adult nappies

Was affecting footfall in local businesses. Pedestrians and business owners had also complained during previous protests. Customer numbers vastly reduced and many businesses closed.

Announced Sect 14 –was announced continuously over loud speaker.It was also tweeted. Police officers were instructed to tell the protestors that they had to leave the area.-the protest should cease. Protestors have a right to protest but not protests that disrupt emergency services and businesses. Protestors refused to move.

XR unwilling to interact with liaison officer and let them know what they would do; therefore police could not advise more on S14.

Superintendent  Smart left the area at 6.30pm

 

Arresting officer (PC Girling)

Explained the normal protocols she followed. Said the defendant did move towards the pavement but then changed direction and went and sat with a group of  people in the middle of the road.

Ms Ogden explained to the arresting officers that she had a vulnerable friend that she went to sit with.

CCTV engineer

Said loud speaker was the right volume for the area and he wasn’t asked to turn it down

 

Defense

Lawyer

Asked police officer for her training in public order (Accredited Silver Public Order trained). She stated that she knew about balancing the rights of protestors and local people Was causing delays for emergency services and112 buses had to be diverted in 1 hour

Focused quite strongly on geographical boundaries. Police did not explain to protestors what are actually constitutes ‘Oxford Circus’ when telling them to leave that area eg  if there were in the surrounding roads , were they still in ‘Oxford Circus’ and , therefore, still affected by Sect 14. The Sect 14 order did not define’Oxford Circus’. Therefore, it was unclear to which area the instructions applied.

He also stated that the defendant did not, herself, have a shelter, diapers etc

Read three character references  for the defendant . One from a QC,and one from an owner of a large company. Very good references.

Defendant

Talked about her long lived concern about the environment and lack of political action. Has been involved in a variety of environmental action groups and doesn’t think of herself as specifically an XR member.

Was playing the drum in the samba band and did not hear the announcements over the loud speaker although did hear the police officers.

 

DEFENCE SUMMARY

Sect 14 unlawful as not enough precision of detail given-gave case examples

Inconsistent explanations given by police superintendent  and loud speaker message did not give precise instructions.

No advice on other place to protest

Disproportionate-did not give times, or exactly who it applied to e.g lock-ons

Protestors did not have knowledge of specific  conditions

Stated the  almost all of Zeiglar applied in this case:

  • Intensity of the problem
  • Sincerity of belief
  • Choice of specific location
  • Wasn’t locked on

 

 

 

 

 

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?

 

Yes, but neither the defense, or prosecution skeletons had been received by the court

 

 

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

 

Defendant did speak , as above and was cross-examined with regard to her not going to the pavement and about whether she had any intention  of leaving.  She agreed not.

What was the verdict?

 

Credible witness-sincere    Guilty

Good character references

What was the sentence?

 

Conditional  discharge – 6 months

 

What costs were awarded?

 

Costs £775 (£70 pm accepted) victim surcharge £22