This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/24/extinction-rebellion-begin-legal-challenge-against-protest-ban

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Extinction Rebellion begins legal challenge against protest ban Extinction Rebellion protest ban was 'abuse of power', court hears
(about 3 hours later)
Lawyers for Extinction Rebellion are in the high court challenging a police order that effectively banned its supporters from assembling anywhere in London. An order attempting to ban Extinction rebellion protests in London was unlawful, the high court has heard, as lawyers for the group challenged what they described as an abuse of power by police.
The order issued by the Metropolitan police last Monday under section 14 of the Public Order Act said XR activists “must cease their protest(s) within London”, in what was seen as an attempt to curtail the group’s two-week “October uprising”. Seven prominent supporters of XR brought judicial review proceedings against the Metropolitan police after the force last Monday issued the order under section 14 of the Public Order Act to demand that that the group’s activists “cease their protest(s) within London”.
It was criticised by the civil rights groups Amnesty International UK, Article 19 and Liberty, which accused the Met of an unlawful and disproportionate assault on the right to protest. It was considered an attempt to curtail the group’s two-week “autumn uprising” – a series of non-violent direct action protests in the capital – and was criticised by the civil rights groups Amnesty International UK, Article 19 and Liberty as an assault on the right to protest.
Making the case for XR on Thursday, Phillippa Kaufmann QC told Mr Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain they should quash the Met’s use of the order on the basis that it went beyond the law and was framed so unclearly that it was an abuse of power. If the judicial review is successful, lawyers for XR suggest that hundreds of protesters arrested under the order may have a case against the Met that their detention was unlawful.
Section 14, the court heard, should only be applied to a single continuing assembly. But the Met had used the power to attempt to ban the whole of XR’s “autumn uprising”, which Kaufmann said comprised a number of assemblies, both continuing and intended. Making the case for XR on Thursday, Phillippa Kaufmann QC told Mr Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain they should quash the Met’s use of section 14 on the basis that it went beyond the law and was framed so unclearly that it was an abuse of power.
She further argued the existing assemblies banned under the order were not clearly identified by police, which as a result “created a situation where individuals were uncertain whether restrictions applied to them or not”. Section 14, the court heard, should only be applied to a single continuing assembly. But the Met had used the power to attempt to ban the whole of XR’s uprising, which Kaufmann said comprised a number of assemblies, both continuing and intended.
Before the hearing, Tobias Garnett, a human rights lawyer with XR’s legal strategy team, said their case – which they had streamlined since their initial application last week in the interests of urgency – would focus on the argument that police acted beyond the powers granted to them by law. She further argued the existing assemblies banned under the order were not clearly identified by police, which as a result “created a situation where individuals were uncertain whether the restrictions applied to them or not”.
“We are proceeding on whether the Public Order Act gives them the power to do what they did,” Garnett said. “It’s quite an important principle. In response, Ian Skelt, for the Met, argued that the protest had been publicised as a single event with the aim of “intentional civil disobedience”, which had caused widespread disruption to the community.
“We think that more than 400 people have been arrested during the period of the ban, so it means there are a couple of hundred people whose arrests were maybe unlawful. That means they might have a case for false imprisonment.” Given the London-wide nature of the protest, the court heard, long lists of roads or postcodes or other descriptions would have been even less certain than the conditions that were imposed.
Police made the order on Monday evening last week, during XR’s second week of protests in the capital. Some activists linked the imposition of the order to their targeting of the financial district. After the hearing, Tobias Garnett, a human rights lawyer working with XR’s legal strategy team, said: “We’ve had a good day in court today, where our lawyers have been defending the right to peaceful protest and our ability to ensure those in power are able to hear the uncomfortable truth about the climate and ecological emergency.
Almost as soon as the order was publicised, police officers moved in to clear a protest camp established by XR supporters in Trafalgar Square, which up to that point had been their only officially sanctioned protest site under the terms of an order. “Rather than wasting its time and money on attempts to silence protest, the government should focus its efforts on meaningful action against the biggest threat we face.”
The amended order had the effect of banning all subsequent protests by the group within the Metropolitan and City of London police force areas for the remainder of the week, although supporters continued to gather, hold protests and carry out direct action until Friday. Earlier, Garnett had said that more than 400 people may have been arrested under the terms of the London-wide section 14. “It means there are a couple of hundred people whose arrests were maybe unlawful,” he said. “That means they might have a cause of false imprisonment.”
The application for judicial review has been brought on behalf of XR by Jenny Jones, Caroline Lucas and Ellie Chowns of the Green party, the Labour MPs Clive Lewis and David Drew, the Labour activist Adam Allnut and the Guardian environment writer George Monbiot. Police made the order on Monday evening last week, during XR’s second week of protests in the capital. Some activists linked the imposition of the order to their targeting of the financial district earlier that day. It had the effect of banning all assemblies of two or more XR activists within the Metropolitan and City of London police force areas for the remainder of the week, although supporters continued to gather, hold protests and carry out direct action until Friday.
The application for judicial review was brought on behalf of XR by Jenny Jones, Caroline Lucas and Ellie Chowns of the Green party, the Labour MPs Clive Lewis and David Drew, the Labour activist Adam Allnutt and the Guardian environment writer George Monbiot.
Lucas said: “The police use of a section 14 order to ban all Extinction Rebellion protests across the whole of London was a huge overreach of police powers.Lucas said: “The police use of a section 14 order to ban all Extinction Rebellion protests across the whole of London was a huge overreach of police powers.
“This power is there to help the police manage protests, not shut them down altogether. Extinction Rebellion are carrying a message we all need to hear. They won’t be silenced by a police crackdown, nor should they be in a free democratic society.”“This power is there to help the police manage protests, not shut them down altogether. Extinction Rebellion are carrying a message we all need to hear. They won’t be silenced by a police crackdown, nor should they be in a free democratic society.”
A decision is expected next week.
Extinction RebellionExtinction Rebellion
Environmental activismEnvironmental activism
Metropolitan policeMetropolitan police
PolicePolice
LondonLondon
ProtestProtest
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content