Section 14 - Guilty: 30/05/22

Court:

CoL Court 3

Hearing date:

Monday 30/05/22

Bench (DJ or JPs)

Bench   

Charged with:

 Sect 14

Represented by:

Self rep

Please outline key points in prosecution and defense cases.

Prosecution  (  Luke Stanton)

• Described the actions that were taking place around the ‘pink table’ which he said was the height of a two story building
• Protest started at 10 am in Trafalgar Square
• 6.15 Sect 14 established at site of pink table-demo must end by 7pm
• Body cam shown. PC went through normal procedures

Crown claim: no nexus of threat of death, or imminent injury

Superintendent Matthews

• Stated his experience, including 7 ½ years dealing with public events
• Commanding 4 support units
• On the day bronze commanders were in situ and he had overall charge
• He went with group that broke away from the main march and went to Long acre
• At site- chairs joined together in circle around table and people locked on to vehicles
• Vehicles unable to get through/buses on divert/businesses affected- business down by 30%-spoke with individual businesses  which expressed concern about loss of trade
• Gained the impression that taxi drivers would have driven through the crowd with no police presence and some staff working for the businesses might have resorted to violence
• 5pm command meeting – expected protest to go on a long time as pink table had food and clothes- other people had sleeping bags
• Regular talks with XR police liaison Paul, Richard and Karen
• Called bronze community support in
• Before considering sect 14 , considered: moving the table

                                                                                        Getting protestors to pavement

                                                                                        Allowing 1 of the roads to be used for

                                                                                        Protest

• Graffiti and XR stickers every where- criminal damage plus highway obstruction
• Sect 14 issued for 24 hours . Form 317OC completed ( gives reasons for Sect14)
• Sect 14 conveyed on social media, to protestors individually and by loud hailer (on loop)
• Was on scene until 8.10. Was the most senior police officer at the scene

CROSSED EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT

• Police officers surrounded the area making access to the business v difficult

Supt Matthews replied. Also large police presence would deter tourists and upset locals

• Had established filter cordon very quickly but escorted people to restaurants where they had reservations. Also let locals in.
• Also asked if the supt knew what the graffiti was drawn with.
• He replied that he was unable to tell

Arresting PC (Clark)

• Explained what she saw on arrival at 7pm
• Heard Sect 11 loud hailer
• Went through protocol (4E’S?) before arrest
• Defendant acknowledged that he had heard by nodding
• Defendant was taken to Walworth Police station

CROSS EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT

• Hadn’t received bodycam footage although had asked for it by email , more than once.  Prosecutor said that this had been given to Hodder James ( solicitors) at time of initial hearing
• Defendant agreed with most of PCs statement
• PC had asked to look at the back of his neck and he had some bruising. Also bruised on arm . Perhaps happened when he was lifted off the chair.
• Suggested that PC collided with someone else at some stage. She couldn’t remember this.

Defense

Proportionality and necessity

Right to protest

56 year old farmer/social scientist/ written a book on small scale farming

• Acting on catastrophic global emergency
• He and fellow farmers have experienced affects on their business of climate change/ changing weather patterns and pests
• Critical moment for ordinary people to make their views known
• Small ( non series) disorder balanced against climate changeNe

Necessity

• Trajectory 3 percent by 2100
• Collective action problem- cant link carbon emissions to individual actions
• Academic paper in 2018 linked heatwave in India with large number of deaths to climate change
• IPC C international report stated that civil disobedience is needed to move towards action on global warming

Chair of magistrates interfered at this time to say that He just wanted a defense based on what happened on the day

• There is a nexus of actual threat-individual people are dying as a result of climate change

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

CROSS EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION

• Asked if defendant agreed that it was a busy part of central London-CS replied that he was unable to comment as he was not from London
• Asked if agreed that traffic was not able to pass through-CS replied that was at least to some extent because of the police cordon.
• CS agreed that he didn’t respond to PC
• CS stated the people at the demonstration used the local café
• Prosecution stated that, as the demonstration had been allowed to go on that long , the right to protest had been adhered to

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?

Not that I know of

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

Yes to both

What was the verdict?

Guilty – no aggravating aspects- previous good character

What was the sentence?

Conditional  discharge – 9 months

What costs were awarded?

Costs £775 (defendant offered to pay in full) victim surcharge £22

Please add anything else relevant.