Article in the Independent on Royal Wedding Judicial Review

The pre-emptive action to stop dissenting voices

Article originally appeared on The Independent Blog on Friday 3rd of August 2012

On the day of the royal wedding I was arrested for being in fancy dress. I had gone to Soho Square to report on the zombie flashmob I’d heard about on Twitter. I planned to take photos, interview people, and report on it for a friend’s zombie blog. Five of us left the area when it looked like we might be kettled. We decamped to a nearby Starbucks to drink coffee and talk zombie movies. From there we were stopped and searched, arrested, handcuffed and held in police cells for hours. The reason: police interpreted the flashmob as an anti-royalist protest.

We were arrested for a ‘breach of the peace’. Two weeks ago the High Court dismissed four separate Judicial Reviews that myself and others brought against the Metropolitan police. The stage is set for extremely heavy-handed policing over the Olympics, and the crackdown has already begun.

My Judicial Review was made up of fifteen people arrested for speculative breaches of the peace on the day of the wedding. The other three consisted of one minor arrested pre-emptively for the criminal damage he could have committed with two pens in his backpack, and two Judicial Reviews about riot police raids on squats the day before. The police came with warrants to search for stolen bike and computer parts in the Ratstar squat, and paintbombs at Grow Heathrow. In execution the police were more interested in finding out the residents’ identities: they searched squatters’ wallets looking for ID at Grow Heathrow and took all toothbrushes from the Ratstar in what the plaintiffs’ lawyers say was a sweep for DNA.

Others in my own Judicial Review included members of the Charing Cross 10 – a group of republicans arrested on their way to the Red Lion Square’s republican street party, a ‘known activist’ arrested simply for being near Trafalgar Square, and one woman – arrested along with her friend, because one of them has a flyer about the flashmob in their pocket.

In court the Met’s barrister classified our arrest as a category 2 breach of the peace – which means that we weren’t arrested because our own actions were believed to be criminal but because our presence could provoke ‘not wholly unreasonable acts of violence’ from others. In our case the ‘others’ were indisputably taken by both sides to mean royalists.

The weekend after our court hearing was the Jubilee. After my own experience the year before, I went to Republic demo by the Thames as a legal observer. Hundreds of people stood holding placards with slogans like ‘down with the crown’ while an endless stream of royalists walked past. Some booed. Others told them to go home. A few sang God Save the Queen at them – that was it. That was the apparently volatile mix of republicans and monarchists which the police had arrested me to prevent.

Our arrests did not happen in isolation. They are part of what many civil liberties groups point to as a pattern of an increasing de facto criminalisation of protest. Increasingly, those attending demonstrations know they may be photographed, stopped and searched, or kettled without access to food, water or toilets. In the student demonstrations of 2010 the Met kettled school children in sub-zero temperatures for hours. One hundred and forty five UK Uncut demonstrators were arrested and brought to trial for ‘aggravated tresspass’ simply for sitting down in Fortnum and Mason. Increasingly, it seems, the police want to put people off demonstrating – and for the regulars who are assumed to be ‘ringleaders’ the police find ways to tie them into lengthy, expensive and exhausting legal battles.

In our High Court hearing we were hoping for a judgement which ruled that the police acted unlawfully over the royal wedding. A judgement which could have clarified that holding (or being suspected of holding) dissenting opinions does not give the police licence to arrest people or raid their homes with riot police. As it stands: the current judgement has set a troubling precedent. In stating that the police did not act unlawfully, the high court has in effect given licence to the police to do the same again.

We are looking into appeals, but in the meantime the crackdown for the Olympics has already begun. On the 17th of July former graffiti artists (some who had only ever done corporate commissions, others who had not been active for years) were arrested and bailed with conditions banning them from going within a mile of any Olympic sites. On the night of the opening ceremony over 130 Critical Mass cyclists were arrested under Section 12 of the public order act for causing a public nuisance. Their bike ride has been a monthly event for many years and their right to ride without notifying the police was upheld by the House of Lords in 2008. The cyclists were released with bail conditions banning them from coming within 100 metres of an Olympic venue.

Tolerance and free speech are proud parts of our tradition. Over the next few years more and more people will have reasons to protest. Those in power know this and are acting pre-emptively to stop dissenting voices being heard, and the clampdown is affecting even those suspected of being dissenters. My own experience with fancy dress was clearly frivolous, but this is the thin end of a very sinister wedge.

Poem: Raise You

I generally veer away from letting my poetry get too explicitly political, just because I’ve seen it done really badly, but.. this one escaped. I’ve performed this a few times and it’s always gone down a storm, but I’m not sure about the performance-to-page transition (or, frankly, the punctuation) – all feedback appreciated.

All instances named in this poem are from real life (though they didn’t all happen to me.)

Raise You (2nd Draft)

We say “the owners of this shop have dodged six billion in tax – almost exactly the same amount which is currently being cut from disability benefits and people are dying as a result. These guys should pay their tax. It would actually save lives if these guys paid their tax.”
You say we’re intimidating shoppers.

We say “stop the arms trade! In this building right here, right now, people are making deals to sell arms to corrupt regimes who will use those weapons on civilians.”
You say we’re causing a breach of the peace.

I say “that’s my bike chain. See my bike helmet? See my bike? That’s my sodding bike chain.”
You say I’m carrying a weapon.

But we’ll see your bullshit
And we’ll raise you.

We’ll raise our voices, we’ll raise our fists
We’ll raise teams of legal observers to march in our midsts
We’ll raise awkward questions and what’s more as well
We’ll see your bullshit

We’ll call your bullshit
And we’ll raise hell.

Of course you’ll see this and you’ll raise us
But we knew you would: it doesn’t phase us
It’s a challenge that we’ll gladly take
‘Cause there’s more than your inconvenience at stake:
You only do this ’cause you’re paid by the hour
While it’s justice that calls us to speak truth to power.

And we’ll raise petitions, we’ll raise court cases
We’ll raise placards and tents and occupy your spaces
And more than that we’ll raise our sights
‘Cause you only want us to go away;
We want justice, fairness and human rights.

And you’ll see what we do and again you’ll raise us
And it’s a pain in the arse but it doesn’t phase us
Because of stop and search we won’t carry ID
But our words and our message and our feet will run free
And you’ll use whatever you can to shut us up
- because that’s just what you do -
But we’ll see your bullshit
We’ll call your bullshit,
And believe us: we will raise you.

Dedicated to Commanders Mick Johnson and Bob Broadhurst of the Metropolitan Police.

Pageantry & pre-crime: Royal Wedding arrests Judicial Review begins Monday at the High Court

This Monday 28 May, sees a landmark Judicial Review begin at the High Court examining policing tactics – including the use of ‘pre-crime’ arrests – employed around last year’s Royal Wedding, which will likely impact future policing of upcoming events such as the Jubilee and the Olympics. [1]

Hannah Eiseman-Renyard, one of the fifteen people granted leave to challenge their arrests by way of a Judicial Review, said: “Saturday 29 April last year was a day of contrasts. On one hand there was pageantry, celebration, pomp and ceremony as William Windsor and Kate Middleton got married. However, on the other hand, dozens of innocent people were arrested by the Metropolitan Police, handcuffed and detained for crimes which they had not committed, in an apparent attempt to silence potential dissent.”

“These ‘pre-crime’ arrests were supposedly to pre-emptively ‘prevent a breach of the peace’. In reality, they are part of a trend of increasingly heavy-handed tactics employed against peaceful protestors, aimed at creating a ‘chilling effect’ to dissuade others from protesting in the future. With this Judicial Review, we plan to challenge the validity of this style of policing and our unnecessary arrests – the use of such tactics raises questions of constitutional significance with regard to the role of policing in a democracy.”

The Judicial Review hearing will be heard with three other cases arising out of the police’s actions over the course of the Royal Wedding bank holiday weekend: two concerning raids on squats on 28 April by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service and the other arising out of another pre-emptive arrest of a minor on the day of the Royal Wedding. The 15 claimants, who were all released without charge once the public celebrations had finished, are being represented by Karon Monaghan QC and Ruth Brander. [2] The claimants in the three other cases have different legal teams.

“It is our view that the treatment of our clients was unlawful under common law and was in breach of their fundamental rights,” said a spokesperson from Bhatt Murphy, the civil liberties solicitors who are representing the claimants. “The apparent existence of an underlying policy that resulted in those arrests is a matter of considerable concern with implications for all those engaged in peaceful dissent or protest.”

Who was arrested?
Those arrested were not a cohesive group and they did not have cohesive aims. Some were people on their way to peaceful protests, others were people the police merely suspected of being protestors. Those arrested include members of the ‘Charing Cross 10’ who were on their way to a republican street party, the ‘Starbucks Zombies’ who were arrested from an Oxford Street branch of Starbucks for wearing zombie fancy dress, and a man who was simply walking in London and was arrested by plainclothes officers because he was ‘a known activist’.

Daniel Randall, one of the ‘Charing Cross 10′ arrestees, said: “The British Transport Police officer’s comment confirmed our suspicions that the police were using pre-emptive arrests as a political tactic to keep republican voices off the streets and out of the public eye.”

Erich, a Starbucks Zombie arrestee, said: “I was told by the police, ‘if you’re going to dress like that, you’ve got to expect to be arrested’. And I thought I had to break the law to be arrested.”

Notes
[1] The website Pageantry and Precrime has blog posts, accounts, and footage from various arrests on the day of the royal wedding. It aims to gather all public domain information on the court case into one place http://pageantryandprecrime.wordpress.com/
[2] Bhatt Murphy is a leading civil liberties firm which specialises in police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, deaths in custody and immigration detention.
Karon Monaghan QC -
http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Members/29/Karon%20Monaghan.aspx.
Ruth Brander – http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/ruth_brander.cfm

Crowd-funding legal actions

Wow. A lot of people want to see the Met in court.

I had an unpleasant surprise on Wednesday night that my legal excess bill was not small change. (The rest is covered by legal aid, but this bit is non-negotiable) and I need to pay £550 before the end of the month.

(Background to the case nicely covered by the Guardian here:)

Sarah J from the Bad Reputation suggested crowd funding, so I put together a Facebook group called ‘I’ll Give Hannah a Tenner to see the Met in Court‘. I was looking for 55 people to pledge a tenner, which would be refunded (as all my legal fees would be) if I win – but if I lose the case then, sorry, thank you for your charity. It went to a good cause.

I made a group with this copy:

Hannah was arrested, handcuffed and held in a police station on the day of the royal wedding because she was dressed like a zombie (for a flashmob) which police had decided was an anti-royalist statement. She hadn’t broken any laws and was in a Starbucks, queuing to buy a coffee at the time. She and fourteen others arrested pre-emptively (i.e. illegally) have won the right to a Judicial Review.

Full details available here: http://pageantryandprecrime.wordpress.com/

However, even with legal aid she’s got a few costs that can’t be shirked. She’s looking for 55 people to donate a tenner – which will be refunded if she wins the case.

And I tweeted and Facebooked it – as did my friends. I was expecting some friends to support it, and maybe even a couple of activists with… ahem… history with the Met. I was thinking even half the costs would be a huge help.

You, good people, did not disappoint. Within 24 hours I had more money pledged than I was asking for. Thank you so much, you have no idea. It’s a huge help financially, obviously – it’s also hugely heartening and touching that so many people want to help so much.

I will spend the weekend sorting out the best method of transferring money (I’ve been warned off paypal). If anyone wants to donate to this cause but has missed the boat – the wonderful Netpol – the network for police monitoring are well worth a tenner. They’re made up of amazing organisations such as the Climate Camp Legal Team, FITWatch, Green & Black Cross, the Legal Defence & Monitoring Group and Newham Monitoring Project (NPM). These guys will be supporting protest and fighting police abuses of power long after our court case has been and gone – so click on the Netpol site where you can donate by paypal.

But in the meantime, from the bottom of my heart, thank you everyone.

Judicial Review of Pre-emptive Royal Wedding Arrests

For anyone wanting to know what happened next about the Royal Wedding/Starbucks Zombie arrests, here it is: we got organised; we found more people who’d suffered the same treatment; we found some brilliant lawyers and we’re going to have a Judicial Review into the Metropolitan Police’s Actions.

Unlike a Private or Civil Law claim (which would have been easier to achieve), this is an investigation which can and will go as high up the chain as is necessary to find out what the policies were and who made what decisions. Private or Civil Law claims would have almost certainly ended up with the police throwing some compensation money at us before we ever got to a judgement – but we, the claimants, said wasn’t about money – we wanted a proper investigation and a judgement at the end of it to set a precedent for future policing.

Today I got the news that we have been granted permission for that Judicial Review. Needless to say I am delighted. Official press release below:

Judicial Review of Preemptive Royal Wedding Arrests

Fifteen people who were arrested preemptively on the day of the Royal Wedding have been granted permission to challenge their arrests by way of Judicial Review. The claimants, who were arrested from different locations across central London, had not committed any crimes. Those arrested included people on their way to peaceful protests, as well as people the police merely suspected of being on their way to protests. None of the claimants were charged and all were released almost as soon as the public celebrations had finished.

“It is our view that the treatment of our clients was unlawful under common law and was in breach of their fundamental rights under the European Court of Human Rights articles 5, 8, 10 and 11,” said a spokesperson from Bhatt Murphy. “The apparent existence of an underlying policy that resulted in those arrests is a matter of considerable concern with implications for all those engaged in peaceful dissent or protest.”

Those arrested include members of the ‘Charing Cross 10’ who were on their way to a republican street party, the ‘Starbucks Zombies’ who were arrested from an Oxford Street branch of Starbucks for wearing zombie fancy dress, and a man who was simply walking in London and was stopped and arrested by plainclothes officers because he was a ‘known activist’. The arrests have been dubbed ‘precrime’ in many circles.

The arrests, all said to be to prevent anticipated breach of the peace, are part of a trend on the part of Metropolitan Police of using increasingly heavy-handed tactics against peaceful protestors, which manifested itself most recently in the threat to use rubber bullets against students protesting against the rise in tuition fees. Such tactics create a ‘chilling effect’ which dissuades others from protesting in the future.

The use of such tactics, which on the day of the royal wedding appears to have gone so far as to include a policy of carrying out preemptive arrests in order to intercept and prevent public protest and other dissent, raises questions of constitutional significance with regard to the role of policing in a democracy. The granting of permission for a Judicial Review means that those tactics will now be subject to the full scrutiny of the High Court in a 5 day hearing some time in the next year.

Bhatt Murphy is a leading civil liberties firm which specialises in police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, deaths in custody and immigration detention.

Open Letter to William and Catherine Windsor re: Precrime Arrests

Dear William and Catherine Windsor,

Congratulations on the wedding. How’s married life treating you? As per your instructions, in lieu of a gift, I will be making a donation to charity. I’ve chosen a legal aid charity. There’s some self-interest in that choice, but I’ll get to that later.

I don’t mean to put a dampener on things, but I would like to bring to your attention that on the day of your wedding (and even, in various incidents, the day before your wedding) the Metropolitan Police force arrested over a hundred people pre-emptively on the suspicion that they may, in the future, breach the peace.

People who had not broken any laws were detained at your grandmother’s/grandmother-in-law’s pleasure.

This is illegal, and constitutes an abuse of police powers.

These people were not a cohesive group and did not have cohesive aims. Some of them were protesting the cuts, some were republicans, some of them (myself included) did not have any stated aims at all, we just looked unconventional. All these people had in common was that the Metropolitan Police thought they looked like they may, in the future, breach the peace or cause a public nuisance.

When they were arrested some laughed – initially, some cried, some were fairly uninteresting in their behaviour, though they were dressed a bit funny. (That’s me in the bridesmaid’s dress – look, I made an effort!)

In this massive, sweeping abuse of police power people were arrested for possession of signs, possession of pens, and possession of their own credit cards.

If this sounds laughable that’s because it is – but it’s also deadly serious. The police are there to make the country safe for all the people they serve, not to silence the first sign of possible dissent. You, as heirs to the throne, are more than aware of the freedoms this country has fought for, and surely appreciate that this cannot continue unchecked.

On the day of your wedding, indeed for your wedding, it got nasty. Really nasty: retired anthropology professor Chris Knight was detained for 25 hours and his house and car were searched multiple times; pacifist protester Charlie Veitch was moved to an undisclosed location and denied his right to a phonecall or a lawyer; two transgender people were sexually assaulted by the police; at least two people were arrested on spurious grounds after filming others’ arrests, and more cases are coming to light as the days go on.

Whilst I’m not saying that these sweeping abuses were your fault, they were absolutely done in your name. We even have a policeman on video saying so in as many words 57 seconds in to this video here.

Therefore, I would be most grateful if you, the happy couple – and heirs to the throne – could let the Metropolitan Police know that you disapprove of these illegal and abusive actions.

Sincerely,

Hannah Eiseman-Renyard