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/environment/2019/nov/06/police-ban-on-extinction-rebellion-protests-ruled-illegal-by-high-court

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue Met as ban ruled unlawful Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue Met as ban ruled unlawful
(about 5 hours later)
Section 14 order issued to halt protest across London was not legitimate, high court rulesSection 14 order issued to halt protest across London was not legitimate, high court rules
Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue the Metropolitan police for unlawful arrest after the high court quashed an order banning the group’s protests in London last month.Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue the Metropolitan police for unlawful arrest after the high court quashed an order banning the group’s protests in London last month.
In a judgment handed down on Wednesday morning, Mr Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the section 14 order imposed during XR’s “autumn uprising” in October was unlawful. Mr Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the Met police’s section 14 order that XR “must now cease their protests within London” was unlawful because it went beyond the powers granted to police by the Public Order Act.
Dingemans said: “Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if coordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not a public assembly within the meaning of … the act. In a judicial review ruling handed down on Wednesday morning, the judges said that the Met had been wrong to define Extinction Rebellion’s two-week long “autumn uprising” as a single public assembly on which it could impose the order.
“The XR autumn uprising intended to be held from 14 to 19 October was not therefore a public assembly … therefore the decision to impose the condition was unlawful because there was no power to impose it under … the act.” “Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if coordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not a public assembly under the meaning of section 14(1) of the 1986 act,” Dingemans said.
However, the judges noted there were powers within the act that might be used lawfully to “control future protests which are deliberately designed to ‘take police resources to breaking point’”. “The XR autumn uprising intended to be held from 14 to 19 October was not therefore a public assembly … Therefore the decision to impose the condition was unlawful because there was no power to impose it.”
The case was brought by seven prominent supporters of XR: 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. The ban was “hastily imposed [and] erratically applied”, said Jules Carey, partner at Bindmans and part of the team that brought the judicial review claim. “This judgment is a timely reminder to those in authority facing a climate of dissent: the right to protest is a longstanding fundamental right in a democratic society that should be guarded and not prohibited by overzealous policing.”
Jones said: “This is an historic win because for the first time we’ve challenged the police on overstepping their powers and we’ve won. It’s great.” The strong judgment striking down the ban is a huge embarrassment for the Met, which had insisted in the face of criticism that it was lawful. It now faces potential claims from hundreds of protesters arrested for breaching the order, which ran across London from 9pm on Monday 14 October until 6pm the following Friday.
Chowns, who was arrested in Trafalgar Square just after the Met imposed its blanket section 14, said she would be taking legal advice on whether to now sue the force for unlawful arrest. “It’s a very expensive mistake for the Metropolitan police,” said Carey. Anyone arrested under the order could now have a claim against the Met for false imprisonment, he said. If force was used against them, they could have a further claim for assault.
She said: “I think it’s very important that we’ve won because the police actions were both disproportionate and also very dangerous.” She said curtailing free protest was a slippery slope. “I’m sure most of them would want to start off with an apology for the ordeal that they experienced, but all of them could potentially be awarded several thousands of pounds depending on how long they were arrested for and whether force was used against them.”
Kevin Blowe, a coordinator of the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), who was in court to see the judgment handed down, said that although it was a good decision by the court, it left the police with serious questions to answer. “Someone really needs to be held accountable for the decisions that they made,” he said. The 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 columnist George Monbiot.
The ban was implemented under section 14 of the Public Order Act at 9pm on Monday 14 October and lasted until 6pm on Friday 18 October. In the meantime, according to Metropolitan police figures, more than 400 Extinction Rebellion activists were arrested. Chowns was herself arrested in Trafalgar Square as she attempted to challenge police on their justification for the ban. She said she would take legal advice on whether to sue the Met for unlawful arrest.
In a statement, the Metropolitan police’s assistant commissioner Nick Ephgrave said the ban followed “unacceptable and prolonged disruption to Londoners”. The force said it was disappointed by the ruling and would consider its position, including whether it would appeal. “I believed then that that decision [to ban XR protests] was disproportionate and dangerous, and today’s judgment in the high court has vindicated that,” she said. “It’s time to act. Not to outlaw the alarm, but to listen to it and to tackle the emergency with the urgency that it deserves.”
Ephgrave said: “The decision to apply the conditions on 14 October on the Extinction Rebellion ‘autumn uprising’ protest was not taken lightly. After more than a week of serious disruption in London both to communities and across our partner agencies, and taking account of the enormous ongoing effort by officers from the Metropolitan police service and across the UK to police the protest, we firmly believed that the continuation of the situation was untenable. The Metropolitan police’s assistant commissioner, Nick Ephgrave, said the force was disappointed by the ruling and would consider its position, including whether it would appeal. The decision to impose the ban “was not taken lightly” and followed “unacceptable and prolonged disruption to Londoners”, he said.
“I want to be clear: we would not and cannot ban protest. The condition at the centre of this ruling was specific to this particular protest, in the particular circumstances at the time. “After more than a week of serious disruption in London both to communities and across our partner agencies, and taking account of the enormous ongoing effort by officers from the Metropolitan police service and across the UK to police the protest, we firmly believed that the continuation of the situation was untenable,” Ephgrave said.
“The conditions which have been ruled on today were imposed under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, and had the effect of making demonstrators face arrest if they continued to assemble to protest in central London past 2100hrs on Monday 14 October.” “I want to be clear: we would not and cannot ban protest. The condition at the centre of this ruling was specific to this particular protest, in the particular circumstances at the time.”
The civil rights groups Amnesty International UK, Article 19 and Liberty criticised the issuing of the order as an assault on the right to protest. The civil rights groups Amnesty International, Liberty and Article 19 welcomed the judgment. “The sweeping, ill-defined and capital-wide ban sent the chilling message that basic freedoms in this country can be set aside when the authorities choose to do so,” said Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK.
Gracie Bradley, a policy and campaigns manager at Liberty, said: “This is a victory for protest rights in the UK. The Met’s Extinction Rebellion ban was grossly disproportionate and undermined people’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This ruling will help safeguard future protests from police overreach.” “People are understandably deeply concerned at a lack of government action to tackle the climate crisis, and the authorities should be ensuring that those demanding climate justice are able to participate in non-violent protests.”
Kevin Blowe, coordinator of the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol), who was in court to see the judgment handed down, said it left police with serious questions to answer. “Someone really needs to be held accountable for the decision,” he said. “What the police can’t do is simply say, ‘It was a difficult situation, we feel we acted proportionately’, and then move on as if nothing has happened.”
The police decision came despite misgivings from the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, one of the two people, along with the home secretary, to whom the force answers. After the ruling, a spokesperson for Khan said he had been clear there was “a fine balance” between keeping London safe and protecting the right to protest.
“On this occasion, the operational decision taken independently by the Metropolitan police, about which Sadiq was extremely concerned at the time, was the wrong side of that line,” the spokesperson said.
“Following the high court ruling today, Sadiq will be seeking further assurances from the Met they will learn lessons from this to ensure future decisions are robust and that they will continue to uphold the right to peaceful and lawful protest.”
The Met faces serious fallout from the judgment. Apart from the compensation claims and criticisms, public order commanders will have to work out which of their powers will survive the legal challenge. With more protests, both by XR and around other issues such as Brexit, expected in coming months, police have lobbied the government for law changes to make it easier to curtail disruptive protests.
One senior police source said changes could include lowering the threshold at which police can place restrictions. Such a change could mean that the prospect of “disruption” is enough to impose conditions, not “serious disruption” as the law currently requires.
Speaking before Wednesday’s judgment, the source said the government had told police it wanted to see more robust and proactive action – so-called “move forward” tactics – to clear the streets.