Sarah Everard vigil cancelled

13 March 2021 by

Reclaim These Streets v Metropolitan Police

Sarah Everard, a 33 year old woman living in London, was walking home from a friend’s house at around 9pm on Wednesday 3rd March 2021 when she disappeared without trace. In the days that followed, public appeals for information and press coverage ensured that the case was widely discussed. A profound sense of unease and desperation for her to be found alive was voiced by many, before the worst news was confirmed. Shockingly, a serving Metropolitan Police Officer has been charged with her kidnap and murder. 

The most important thing to say about the case is contained in the statement of Sarah Everard’s family.  They describe the sort of person that she was and what she meant to them.  

One former colleague of Sarah Everard sharing her own memories of her added 

she’s a real person, not some hanger on which to display your views about women.  

But the case has prompted a wider discussion about how the risk of violence and harassment against women going about their ordinary business has been normalised and accepted as part of everyday life, such that calculations as to how to minimise that risk have become second nature to many.  The MP Jess Phillips, speaking during a parliamentary debate to mark International Women’s Day said: “Killed women are not vanishingly rare.  Killed women are common”, before reading the names of every woman killed in the UK in the last year where a man has been convicted or charged as the main perpetrator, that exercise taking more than four minutes.

Against this background, an organisation called “Reclaim These Streets” (“RTS”) stated that they wished to “channel the collective grief, outrage and sadness in our community” and decided to hold “a short gathering on Clapham Common, centred around a minute of silence to remember Sarah Everard and all women lost to violence”.  The event was described as a “socially distanced vigil” having regard to the restrictions currently in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  It was scheduled to take place at 6pm on Saturday 13 March 2021, close to where Sarah Everard was last seen alive.

Regarding the Covid restrictions, RTS have stated that the initial indication from the Metropolitan Police (“MPS”) was that they were “trying to navigate a way through” and that they were “currently developing a local policing plan” to allow the vigil to take place. No doubt that would have been reassuring to those who wished to attend, weighing the risks presented by Covid to themselves and to the community at large with the importance to them of gathering with others as a means of expressing themselves on the issues raised by Sarah Everard’s death.   

However, any individual decisions about attending the vigil became academic with the subsequent indication by MPS that their position had been reversed – the vigil was deemed to be illegal and RTS faced the possibility of hefty fines and criminal prosecution should it go ahead.

RTS sought legal advice and started a crowdfunding campaign to fund litigation to challenge the decision.  That campaign stated that a declaration would be sought from the high court that:

the Metropolitan Police are wrong in their interpretation of the law and that a socially distant, outdoor gathering of this kind can be allowed under the current lockdown regulations, when read together with the Human Rights Act.

Accordingly, the RTS vigil became entwined with a highly topical debate, namely whether the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic are unduly restrictive. A statement from Liberty called for the vigil to go ahead, stating:

Protest is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy, and it’s critical that those in power do not try to stop us from standing up for what we believe in. Safe, socially distanced demonstrations are perfectly possible, and it is the duty of the police to facilitate them, not block them. The current restrictions should be and can be interpreted compatibly with our rights to free expression and assembly enshrined in the Human Rights Act. Threatening prohibitively heavy fines, with the risk of criminal conviction if challenged, for arranging this demonstration is the latest example of blunt powers being used heavy-handedly by police, and our rights being unjustly restricted.

What’s also concerning is that there are further planned attacks against our right to protest in the long-term, not just in lockdown. This week the Government revealed its new Policing Bill, a wide-ranging piece of legislation which includes numerous opportunistic attacks on our rights, including the right to protest.

At a time when the Government has given itself enormous powers in ways that affect all of us, it’s more important than ever that we can hold power to account.

With lockdown easing, our rights must be returned in full. We must be able to stand up for what we believe in – we must protect our right to protest.

The matter came before Mr Justice Holgate at 3:45pm on the day before the vigil was due to go ahead.  At the time of writing, a written judgment is not available.  Live reporting from court indicated that the following arguments were deployed.

On behalf of RTS it was argued that although the Covid-19 regulations prohibit gatherings, this was subject to consideration of whether the vigil would be a reasonable and legitimate exercise of individual rights of freedom of expression and assembly for protest protected under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  That, it was said, had not been considered by the Metropolitan Police who were deploying a blanket ban on protests, as indicated in a written policy and in correspondence.

In response, it was said that the police did not in fact have a policy banning all protests.  The police had considered the applicable rights and had nonetheless concluded that allowing a gathering that could lead to very significant crowds would not be justified.

The judge declined to make the order sought by RTS.   However he is reported to have commented that there may be further communication between the parties to deal with the application of the regulations and the right to protest in relation to this particular event.

A statement from RTS suggests that because of the ruling, 

protest during the Coronavirus pandemic is now potentially lawful in England, as police are now able to take into account the fact that our protest has public health and public safety as a primary focus. We are working with the Council, who remain wholly supportive.  We call on the police to act within the law now and confirm that they will work with us to ensure that the protest can go ahead…

 The position from their perspective appears to be that the only reason why the declaration sought was not granted is that the Metropolitan Police conceded the point that it had to take into account the right to protest enshrined in the HRA.  They now expect further consideration to be given to how the event can take place lawfully.

However, a statement from the Metropolitan Police states that 

Today’s ruling in the High Court has confirmed that the Metropolitan Police may conclude that attendance at a large gathering could be unlawful.  In light of this ruling, our message to those who were looking to attend vigils in London this weekend, including at Clapham Common, is stay at home or find a lawful and safer way to express your views”.

If the original decision was taken, as asserted by the RTS, on the basis of an understanding that there was a blanket ban on protests during lockdown, there is little to suggest that matters have moved on or that any reconsideration has taken place having regard to the proportionality of preventing the vigil from going ahead.  It is not clear how or if the importance of the vigil to those who wish to assemble together “to remember Sarah Everard and all women lost to violence” has been weighed with any risks arising from the particular gathering proposed, said to centre on a minute of silence, or any steps that could be taken to mitigate those risks.  Neither is it clear why if at one stage “a local policing plan” was being developed to enable the vigil to go ahead that plan could not be developed further.  

Supporters, notably Harriet Harman MP, are continuing to call for the vigil to proceed on an agreed basis, but at the time of writing, with less than 24 hours to go before it is due to take place there is a lack of clarity on whether matters are in fact being revisited or are seen as concluded by the MPS.  RTS have indicated that they are in discussions with MPS and will issue a statement on the morning of the planned vigil.

Update:

statement from RTS this morning confirms that agreement was not reached and the vigil has been cancelled, with people urged not to attend public gatherings and to consider lighting a candle on their doorsteps instead. 

7 comments


  1. David says:

    And I’m saying that it is fallacious to imply that the police or anybody else were denying the democratic right to protest. They objected to it purely on the grounds that it flouted CoVid rules. The organizers maybe thought that they could hold the protest while staying within the rules. Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not. Either way, it’s an opinion, and someone can disagree with it (as the police obviously did) without being a misogynist or a fascist. If there weren’t a pandemic, it would have been allowed, as many others have been

  2. Menno says:

    @David: true, but the article was about the right to demonstrate. That the demonstration still went on and the way the police behaved is a different matter. The organisation was willing to comply with Covid regulations etc and in that light it is very disturbing that such a basic democratic right is denied. Parliament with it’s 80 seat Conservative majority is hardly able to stop this government, as we’ve seen since the last election so demonstrations are one of the last resorts

  3. David says:

    Its very easy to pump intuitions and evoke emotions just by describing something in one way or another. Describe it as a peaceful protest, and everybody will be up in arms about heavy-handed policing, but describe it instead as a deliberate flouting of rules designed to protect public health and may potentially lead to deaths, then how the police handed it seems entirely justified. It seems to me that RTS went about it the right way in trying to collaborate with the police on how it could take place safely, but when they didn’t get the answer they wanted (not only from the police but from the courts) they went ahead and did it anyway and then pointed the finger at the police when inevitably the police had to break it up. Both descriptions may be true, but take them in isolation they will lead to completely different conclusions. And, by the way, not every attack on a woman is a case of misogyny, and not every attack on a black person is a case of racism, and refusal to accept it as such does not equate to systemic indifference to inequalities (which I would be the last to deny exist and are a blight on our society)

  4. Jonathan Edwards says:

    So there were 2 decisions worth looking at
    (1) MPS decide NOT to give more weight to HRA and will not reach an agreement with RTS. (It would be nice to think that MPS will be challenged further, in legal or political arenas, as with “kettling”.)
    (2) RTS then decide to cancel. This was not inevitable, surely?
    I am interested in the RTS decision to cancel. I wonder what lay behind this?
    One perfectly civilised approach might be: march and take the consequences, including arrest and fines. Of course this takes courage, though not as much as shown by Suffragettes.
    Another possibility might be that there was division in the RTS ranks between 2 opinions eg “save women” and “save us all from Covid”, one of those ethical dilemmas which perplex the ethical.
    Another approach might be the Sumption one – devise a very British understated form of action, less confrontational than a march, but wider perhaps and more effective.
    Whatever, we have got to promote HRA. Lets not give up on it.

  5. Jamie says:

    I get that this is disgusting how the police handled the vigil and everything but the thing bothering me is that everyone you see being interviewed on the news about this says a lot about women not feeling safe and men needing to be taught… But does anyone realise that men do get kidnapped, raped, killed and whatnot too?
    It’s not our fault this happened.

  6. Menno says:

    This is very disturbing. The right to demonstrate is an essential democratic right and if the demonstrators are willing to comply with covid related measurements the authorities should do what they can to facilitate a demonstration. It now seems that the Metropolitan police doesn’t want to be bothered

  7. jake says:

    why does my mind keep wandering back to 1930s Germany :-(

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: