*/
The arrest and detention of Republican protesters as part of the policing of King Charles III’s Coronation on Saturday 6 May was much criticised, and led to a session of the Home Affairs Select Committee hearing evidence from protesters. Widespread comment on the policing of the Coronation under Operation Golden Orb included views that it was wrong and inappropriate, overzealous and counterproductive. The actions of the Metropolitan Police were also arguably in breach of fundamental human rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
The ‘Not My King’ protest was not a spontaneous and disruptive demonstration. In organising the protest, the campaign group, Republic, undertook four months of detailed discussions with the Protest Liaison Team of the Metropolitan Police and no concerns were expressed by the Team. Intimidatory letters were sent by the Home Office’s Police Powers Unit days before the Coronation. Despite these letters, the anti-monarchist protesters believed they were free to peacefully protest as their intention was not to disrupt the Coronation. Before the protest even began, six were arrested, with banners, amplifiers and mobile phones seized. Those arrested included the leader of Republic, Graham Smith, who was prevented from calling his contact in the Protest Liaison Team. The protesters were held for almost 16 hours before being released without charge. Two days later, they were informed their bail was cancelled and no further action would be taken.
The Metropolitan Police has since stated that it regrets those arrested were unable to protest but not the arrests themselves. Graham Smith did receive a personal apology when a chief inspector and two other Metropolitan police officers attended his home to return his mobile phone. This indicates the Metropolitan Police was aware it made a serious error of judgment. A high level of security and intensive policing of the Coronation might be expected. However, 52 arrests relating to ‘concerns people were going to disrupt the event’ with none being charged suggests a disproportionality in the police operation. Individuals arrested were not just anti-monarchists, but a range of protesters involved in a number of activities. These included Just Stop Oil activists for wearing a t-shirt, those attending an activist seminar several miles away and even mistakenly a Monarchist.
The policing in particular of the ‘Not My King’ protest engages the human rights of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. Both of these universal human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and can be claimed by all. Graham Smith is now considering taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police for unlawful arrest and he has a strong case. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental human right involving the right to protest ‘right or wrong, misguidedly or obviously correctly’. The right to freedom of expression includes expressing an opinion and ideas that shock, offend and disturb. Arrest, and any punitive measures preventing protest, will be a restriction of these rights which can only be interfered with to protect a legitimate objective such as preventing crime and disorder. Even if such aim is being pursued, the police’s actions must still be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to be justified. If the police cannot show their inference is justified, they will be acting unlawfully and in breach of a duty imposed on them by the Human Rights Act 1998.
In the case of DPP v Ziegler in 2021, the Supreme Court confirmed the police have a duty to act in compliance with human rights and established the proportionality assessment to be carried out before the rights of protesters are interfered with in any policing operation. This assessment should be a fact-specific enquiry requiring an evaluation of all the individual circumstances to establish if the interference with the rights is necessary. Relevant factors include prior notification and co-operation with the police, the intention of the protest, any interference with the rights of others, the location and the importance of the protest.
The Metropolitan Police is aware that any action taken against protesters must be necessary and proportionate. In 2022 the High Court found that it had acted unlawfully by failing to carry out a proportionality assessment in accordance with Ziegler before banning the Sarah Everard Vigil. The then actions of the Metropolitan Police were held to have a ‘chilling’ effect on the rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. There are stark similarities between this case and that of the ‘Not My King’ protest, with both organisers taking all necessary action to obtain prior approval for a protest of public interest. Arguably, the claim of the Republicans would be even stronger as the Sarah Everard Vigil was organised at the time of COVID restrictions, relied on by the Metropolitan Police unsuccessfully as justification. As stated by the Supreme Court in Ziegler, public authorities should show a ‘certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings’; the Republican protest did not intend to, nor did it provoke disorder.
The police stated the arrests of the Republican protesters was for the offence of going equipped for ‘locking on’ to others, objects or buildings to cause serious disruption under the Public Order Act 2023. The Act is controversial and was rushed through Parliament for the Coronation. Any evaluation of proportionality in interpreting new police powers under the legislation will include the nature and extent of breaches of domestic law. All that was found at the Republican protest was luggage straps and string to secure placards. The Metropolitan Police has already conceded that its investigation failed to prove intent to use these items to lock on and disrupt the Coronation.
An earlier co-authored article in Counsel questioned whether the Lancashire Police carried out a proportionality assessment before the disclosure of private information in the investigation of Nicola Bulley’s disappearance. In announcing no further action was to be taken in respect of the investigation, the Information Commissioner’s Officer recently confirmed the need for a proportionality assessment before any police interference with an individual’s human rights. The reports of the arrest and detention of anti-monarchy protesters at the Coronation for new public order offences, with no further action being taken indicates that Metropolitan Police failed to undertake a legally required assessment in the policing of the Republican protest. The lessons of the Sarah Everard Vigil and subsequent adverse High Court judgment appear not to have been taken on board.
The Metropolitan Police may be performing a difficult role in current political times. Claims of any political pressure not to ‘damage the look of the Coronation’ were denied by a senior officer. Regardless of political pressure, the police must act compatibly with human rights in operational decision making, particularly regarding newly enacted criminal offences limiting rights to protest and express political opinion. In its factsheet on the Public Order Act 2023, the Government accepts the need for the police to act compatibly with the human rights of protesters when using the new powers provided by the Act. The Metropolitan Police cannot abdicate responsibility to act in compliance with human rights, especially if dealing with restrictive contested new legislation. The actions of the Metropolitan Police are to be regretted.
Catherine Hobby is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the Royal Docks School of Business and Law, University of East London (UEL) specialising in human rights, advocacy and workplace conflict. She is the joint Director of the UEL Centre for Mediation and Conflict Management.
The arrest and detention of Republican protesters as part of the policing of King Charles III’s Coronation on Saturday 6 May was much criticised, and led to a session of the Home Affairs Select Committee hearing evidence from protesters. Widespread comment on the policing of the Coronation under Operation Golden Orb included views that it was wrong and inappropriate, overzealous and counterproductive. The actions of the Metropolitan Police were also arguably in breach of fundamental human rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
The ‘Not My King’ protest was not a spontaneous and disruptive demonstration. In organising the protest, the campaign group, Republic, undertook four months of detailed discussions with the Protest Liaison Team of the Metropolitan Police and no concerns were expressed by the Team. Intimidatory letters were sent by the Home Office’s Police Powers Unit days before the Coronation. Despite these letters, the anti-monarchist protesters believed they were free to peacefully protest as their intention was not to disrupt the Coronation. Before the protest even began, six were arrested, with banners, amplifiers and mobile phones seized. Those arrested included the leader of Republic, Graham Smith, who was prevented from calling his contact in the Protest Liaison Team. The protesters were held for almost 16 hours before being released without charge. Two days later, they were informed their bail was cancelled and no further action would be taken.
The Metropolitan Police has since stated that it regrets those arrested were unable to protest but not the arrests themselves. Graham Smith did receive a personal apology when a chief inspector and two other Metropolitan police officers attended his home to return his mobile phone. This indicates the Metropolitan Police was aware it made a serious error of judgment. A high level of security and intensive policing of the Coronation might be expected. However, 52 arrests relating to ‘concerns people were going to disrupt the event’ with none being charged suggests a disproportionality in the police operation. Individuals arrested were not just anti-monarchists, but a range of protesters involved in a number of activities. These included Just Stop Oil activists for wearing a t-shirt, those attending an activist seminar several miles away and even mistakenly a Monarchist.
The policing in particular of the ‘Not My King’ protest engages the human rights of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. Both of these universal human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and can be claimed by all. Graham Smith is now considering taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police for unlawful arrest and he has a strong case. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental human right involving the right to protest ‘right or wrong, misguidedly or obviously correctly’. The right to freedom of expression includes expressing an opinion and ideas that shock, offend and disturb. Arrest, and any punitive measures preventing protest, will be a restriction of these rights which can only be interfered with to protect a legitimate objective such as preventing crime and disorder. Even if such aim is being pursued, the police’s actions must still be necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to be justified. If the police cannot show their inference is justified, they will be acting unlawfully and in breach of a duty imposed on them by the Human Rights Act 1998.
In the case of DPP v Ziegler in 2021, the Supreme Court confirmed the police have a duty to act in compliance with human rights and established the proportionality assessment to be carried out before the rights of protesters are interfered with in any policing operation. This assessment should be a fact-specific enquiry requiring an evaluation of all the individual circumstances to establish if the interference with the rights is necessary. Relevant factors include prior notification and co-operation with the police, the intention of the protest, any interference with the rights of others, the location and the importance of the protest.
The Metropolitan Police is aware that any action taken against protesters must be necessary and proportionate. In 2022 the High Court found that it had acted unlawfully by failing to carry out a proportionality assessment in accordance with Ziegler before banning the Sarah Everard Vigil. The then actions of the Metropolitan Police were held to have a ‘chilling’ effect on the rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. There are stark similarities between this case and that of the ‘Not My King’ protest, with both organisers taking all necessary action to obtain prior approval for a protest of public interest. Arguably, the claim of the Republicans would be even stronger as the Sarah Everard Vigil was organised at the time of COVID restrictions, relied on by the Metropolitan Police unsuccessfully as justification. As stated by the Supreme Court in Ziegler, public authorities should show a ‘certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings’; the Republican protest did not intend to, nor did it provoke disorder.
The police stated the arrests of the Republican protesters was for the offence of going equipped for ‘locking on’ to others, objects or buildings to cause serious disruption under the Public Order Act 2023. The Act is controversial and was rushed through Parliament for the Coronation. Any evaluation of proportionality in interpreting new police powers under the legislation will include the nature and extent of breaches of domestic law. All that was found at the Republican protest was luggage straps and string to secure placards. The Metropolitan Police has already conceded that its investigation failed to prove intent to use these items to lock on and disrupt the Coronation.
An earlier co-authored article in Counsel questioned whether the Lancashire Police carried out a proportionality assessment before the disclosure of private information in the investigation of Nicola Bulley’s disappearance. In announcing no further action was to be taken in respect of the investigation, the Information Commissioner’s Officer recently confirmed the need for a proportionality assessment before any police interference with an individual’s human rights. The reports of the arrest and detention of anti-monarchy protesters at the Coronation for new public order offences, with no further action being taken indicates that Metropolitan Police failed to undertake a legally required assessment in the policing of the Republican protest. The lessons of the Sarah Everard Vigil and subsequent adverse High Court judgment appear not to have been taken on board.
The Metropolitan Police may be performing a difficult role in current political times. Claims of any political pressure not to ‘damage the look of the Coronation’ were denied by a senior officer. Regardless of political pressure, the police must act compatibly with human rights in operational decision making, particularly regarding newly enacted criminal offences limiting rights to protest and express political opinion. In its factsheet on the Public Order Act 2023, the Government accepts the need for the police to act compatibly with the human rights of protesters when using the new powers provided by the Act. The Metropolitan Police cannot abdicate responsibility to act in compliance with human rights, especially if dealing with restrictive contested new legislation. The actions of the Metropolitan Police are to be regretted.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
