*/
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.
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
