Following is an open letter written by Occupy London legal observers to the Metropolitan police and the City of London police in regards to the handling of the eviction of St Paul’s Cathedral on 28 February 2012. The letter details four key concerns: the attitude of casual contempt by police towards legal observers and activists; assaults by police against activists and the facilitation by police of assaults by High Court Enforcement Officers, the choice of a night time eviction, and the questionable legality of forcibly removing people from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral (which formed no part of the court order to evict the tents and structures on the St Paul’s site only).
31 March 2012
Dear Sirs
We write to highlight our concerns with the handling of the eviction of the St Paul’s occupy camp which took place in the early hours of Tuesday 28 February 2012. We also wish to highlight some deep misgivings we have about the attitude of police towards activists at protests. We believe that the rule of law, a cornerstone of our democracy, is not being observed by the authorities.
General attitude of police
We are experienced legal observers with legal backgrounds. We found the attitude of police at times to be wholly unacceptable. For example, at 1.40am one of us (Melanie) politely asked a group of officers who the highest serving police officer was on the site. Although this request was made politely by a female and it was explained that she was a legal observer, the officer who responded was extremely curt, responding with the following: ‘I don’t talk to legal observers, you’re not legally trained’. The officer’s unnecessarily aggressive attitude did not change even when it was explained by the person making the request that she was a solicitor. The officer that spoke in this way later identified himself as Chief Inspector Stuart Phillips (see below how this came about). Chief Inspector Burgess was also present during the initial exchange.
We find it disturbing that a senior police officer should demonstrate such casual contempt for legal observers. Clearly, this attitude will filter down to more junior police officers, thus embedding a culture of disrespect for legal observers and activists (at best). At worst, we are concerned that this attitude leads to police abusing their power with impunity, with shocking results like the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson (as one example of various). The police as agents of the State have a special duty to be co-operative with and seen to be helpful to members of the public, and should be mindful not to act in a way which would bring the police as an institution into disrepute. We believe the attitude of the police at demonstrations such as the eviction of St Paul’s brings the police into disrepute.
Legal observers play a vital role in observing demonstrations, ensuring that police are not abusing their powers and look out for the welfare of activists. The right to protest is a fundamental human right, yet for this right to be meaningful activists must have some confidence that they will not be arbitrarily attacked by police and/or detained and/or arrested. Unfortunately, there are many examples of police abusing their powers in these ways, and this continues to be the case. One need only reflect on various unlawful/ unexplained killings by police, and the injustice of the Alfie Meadows trial – a student who was seriously injured by, it is thought, a police officer, during the student protest. These injustices demonstrate the need for legal observers and just how crucial they are in helping to hold police to account and in supporting legitimate protest which is so important in a democratic society.
Assaults
We believe that a number of assaults may have taken place at St Paul’s on the night of the eviction, both by police and by the High Court Enforcement Officers who were being supervised by police at all times. In the latter case, we observed that police allowed High Court Enforcement Officers to assault activists and facilitated these assaults.
This was incredibly dangerous and could have ended up with the activist being seriously hurt (as well as the High Court Enforcement Officer himelf). There was an operational plan agreed between the City of London Corporation and the Shergroup (operating as High Court Enforcement Officers), which should have had regard to stringent health and safety parameters. High Court Enforcement Officers were not entitled to use more force than was necessary to fulfil the court order permitting the eviction. This is made clear in the rules and codes of practice which inform High Court Enforcement Officer conduct and practice.
We do not believe police were upholding their duty of care to activists as well as the wider public in facilitating this assault. We also believe that the police and High Court Enforcement Officers were in breach of their duties under health and safety legislation. In particular, we believe police and High Court Enforcement Officers failed in their duty as employees at work to take reasonable care for the health and safety of others affected by their work, under s 7 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
In addition, one of us (Melanie) witnessed what appeared to be an assault by a police officer against an activist, who was forced backwards onto the floor. It appeared from the fact that the activist’s head was looking down and the fact that the officer was pushing at the activist’s chest that disproportionate force was used. The officer who did this identified himself as Chief Inspector Stuart Philips when asked (after some initial reluctance). This was the same officer who had spoken so rudely to the same observer earlier. We are concerned that the attitude of casual contempt which comes across in our conversations with police is borne out in casual assaults by police against activists.
Night time eviction
The police and High Court Enforcement Officers arrived just after midnight. We understand that members of Occupy London requested on a number of occasions that police carry out the eviction during the daytime in order to minimise the distress caused to camp members, in particular the more vulnerable, including those homeless people who had made St Paul’s their home over the preceding months.
The ‘National Standards of Enforcement Agents’ recommend that any enforcement should only be carried out between the hours of 6:00am and 9:00pm. Police owed a duty of care to the people staying at the camp and we believe that they could have better fulfilled that duty by choosing a daytime eviction.
Forcing people off the steps of St Paul’s
We remain unconvinced of the legal basis for forcing people off the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral, which formed no part of the court order (which was to remove the tents and structures). We understand from discussions with police at the start of the eviction that it was always the case that they intended to clear the steps.
During the eviction, when we asked police to confirm the legal basis for removing people from the steps (police started moving people on from around 3am), we were told that to stay on the steps would be an aggravated trespass. However, when questioned further as to why it was an aggravated trespass, the police could not answer other than ‘that’s what we’ve been told’. There were no senior officers available to answer these important legal questions whilst this took place. We suspect that the forced removal of people from the steps was an act of political policing and that the police were acting on instructions from the Corporation of London. We believe this may have gone beyond what police were entitled to do by law. If this is true, it brings the police into dispute again because they have misrepresented their powers and are not acting in a way which befits the police as public servants. We would like the police to clarify the legal basis for forcing people off the steps.
We also refer to a letter from Christians who prayed on the steps of the Cathedral (dated 13 March 2012) (and see photos attached). The letter states that it was ‘profoundly shocking’ for them to have been forcibly removed from the steps, by great numbers of police in full riot gear, literally as they prayed. We know many others experienced this shock, especially those first-time demonstrators who felt compelled to support the occupy camp on eviction night, out of solidarity with its cause.
We look forward to receiving your response to these points, and for the clarification of the legal basis for forcibly moving people off the steps of St Paul’s.
With respect
Melanie Strickland, Solicitor
Matthew Varnham, Law Graduate, Legal Observer & Social Rights Campaigner
The article is 3 days old, this is the first comment…. I imagine its because most readers are so shocked by its content they have been unable to respond in a timely fashion….No??
Anyhoo. Are you sure the person who wrote this is a solicitor, i mean really, really sure?
Its just that I notice Melanie has introduced a new low standard of evidence into the proceedings. That being ‘it is thought’.
“….injustice of the Alfie Meadows trial – a student who was seriously injured by, it is thought, a police officer, during the student protest”
‘Its is thought’ might work well for Alfies mum and those with an axe to grind but it has yet to be backed up with that pesky thing called ‘evidence’.
I imagine this is why Melanie resorts to innuendo and the slur ‘it is thought’
We also have the blatant nonsense of “…leads to police abusing their power with impunity, with shocking results like the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson (as one example of various)”
As the officer involved with that incident is shortly to stand trial for Tomlinsons manslaughter this is not how I would define ‘impunity’.
This article and letter is a joke, 6th forum common stuff at its best. Hopefully the Metropolitan Police will treat is with the gravitas it deserves and consign it to the small round filing cabinet.
Hi ‘Willworkforoil’ – yes I am a solicitor. I don’t understand your objection to the language ‘it is thought’ – this is perfectly acceptable language to use in this context. Obviously I wasn’t there so I’ve chosen my words carefully, as any lawyer or journalist reporting on this would do. The trial of Alfie continues and I hope that will shed some light on what actually happened. I also understand that the IPCC investigation into this is still ongoing. The fact is however, that Alfie was very seriously injured with a blunt instrument… go figure.
Regarding Ian Tomlinson – please look at the video on the Ian Tomlinson Family campaign website: http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/ – it clearly shows the police acting with impunity. The fact that a trial is going to take place many years after Ian’s death has nothing to do with the impunity or otherwise of the police on the day.
This is the response we received from the City of London Police (the Met have not acknowledge the letter yet)
Norma Collicott
Chief Inspector
Professional Standards Directorate
Ms Melanie Strickland
Direct line Direct fax
Your ref: Our ref:
Thursday 5th April 2012
Dear Ms Strickland
I write with regard to your letter dated 31st March and received in this office 2nd April. I will respond in the order in which you have written your allegations.
1. General attitude of Police. In relation to your comments about the attitude of Chief Inspector Stuart Phillips, this appears to be a general statement in relation to Police interaction with Legal Observers, you have not indicated whether you wish for this to be recorded as a formal complaint against the officer named, could you let me know if this is the case please?
2. Assaults. In relation to your comments about assaults you believe to have occurred, I note that you base your beliefs on footage viewed after the event. The Police Reform Act allows for individuals to make a complaint if they are either:
• The person in relation to whom the conduct took place
• A person adversely affected by the conduct (As defined in Section 12(3) and (4) of the Police Reform Act 2002 as amended).
• A person who has witnessed the conduct (Section 12(5) Police Reform Act 2002 as amended) this does not include viewing of materials after the event.
• Additionally someone acting on behalf a person falling into one of the above categories, provided they have the individuals written permission to do so.
In relation to your allegations of assault they do not appear to have been directly witnessed by yourself but viewed after the event and therefore you do not fall into the above definition of a person who can bring a complaint as defined by the Police Reform Act.
Additionally, there is no indication in your letter that you are complaining on behalf of an individual directly affected with their written permission so to do, and therefore these allegations will not be recorded. I can confirm that the City of London Police have not received any complaints in relation to the events described by any other party.
The Police Reform Act deals with the conduct of a person ‘serving with the Police’. The High Court Enforcement Officers you refer to do not fall into this category.
3. Night Time Eviction.
This is a Direction and Control issue, as it relates to strategic and operational command decisions and therefore does not fall under the definition of a ‘complaint’. It will however be recorded as a Direction and Control issue and referred to the relevant Directorate to respond to.
4. Forcing People off the steps of St Paul’s.
As above at 3.
I look forward to hearing from you in relation to how you wish to proceed in respect of point number 1, as above.
For your information, I enclose an IPCC leaflet detailing how you may appeal about the non-recording of your complaint as at number (3) above. I should highlight that any appeal needs to be made with within 28 days from the date of this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Norma Collicott
Chief Inspector
And this is our response to that letter:
Dear Norma
Thank you for your reply. Our response is as follows (following the same order as the original letter).
1. I do not wish to bring a formal complaint against Stuart Phillips – I don’t believe that this will serve any useful purpose. Our concerns relate to the culture of the police when they are policing demonstrations, and the general attitude towards activists. Having legal observed at a number of demonstrations, we know that that the attitude of the police during the eviction of St Paul’s was not a one-off. Activists are apparently classified as ‘domestic extremists’ – indeed this is exactly how the City of London Police categorised Occupy London activists in their letter to businesses late last year, as reported in the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-in-city-see-occupiers-as-terror-risk-6272434.html
The attitude of the police is a serious concern which ought to be investigated and addressed. People have a basic right to protest without being intimidated by the authorities. The culture in which police classify activists as ‘domestic extremists’ must change. It is extremely dangerous for society for police to politicise the act of protesting in this way.
2. In relation to assaults, I am not representing any of the persons at the St Paul’s eviction. We were present at the eviction throughout, so our comments are based on what we saw, not on the footage we included in our original letter. The purpose of including the footage was to show you that High Court Enforcement Officers (with assistance from police) appeared to be pulling down an activist in a way that was reckless as to that person’s safety, and in breach of health and safety law.
There were many incidents that night in which police used disproportionate or unlawful force against activists. Given the speed in which events happen it is not possible to record and follow up with the vast majority of people involved in these incidents. I did encourage people to make a complaint if they believed that they had been assaulted. Unfortunately, many activists see little point in making a complaint to the police. People are also concerned that they will be targeted in future at demonstrations the more they become known to police.
Again, having observed at various demonstrations we know that it is not uncommon for police to use disproportionate and unlawful force against activists at demonstrations.
These are legitimate and serious concerns that ought to be investigated and addressed.
3. Night time eviction – we await a response from the Directorate responsible for Direction and Control.
4. Forcing people off the steps – you have also characterised this as a Direction and Control matter. This is not an answer to the question we asked. All actions by police as agents of the State must be authorised by law. Please can you confirm the legal basis authorising the police to force people off the steps of St Paul’s, which formed no part of the court order allowing for eviction of the tents.
We note that a Freedom of Information request to the City of London for the operational plan agreed between the City of London, Shergroup (the High Court Enforcement private company) and the Met was refused. Had the request been accepted this may have helped to clarify the legal basis or otherwise of forcing people off the steps of St Paul’s.
We invite the City of London Police to be transparent as to the legal basis of their actions. This could help build trust and confidence in the police.
With respect
Melanie Strickland and Matthew Varnham
jesus fucking christ. whoever wrote this is very very naive, and if the occupy collective thinks that this is an effective strategy for dealing with the police they need to seriously rethink their politics.
The police exist to enforce the oppression of one or several ruling classes over other classes. This can be seen clearly through the history of all settled human societies through to modern capitalism, where they serve the interests of the capitalist class to secure their ability to extract profit from the labour of the working class.
If you understand the mechanisms of power within capitalism you can see that this letter is effectively complaining to the police that they are doing their jobs well!
Check this article out
http://libcom.org/library/police-case-against
“this could help build trust and confidence in the police” SERIOUSLY if we want to change society then this is the last cultural meme that would help. People need to see the police for what they are, scabs against all other workers throughout history who have struggled for social change. In the context of a social revolution people need to be willing to collectively stand up as communities to the police and if they live in the same neighbourhoods or streets to challenge them at their homes and not allow them to carry out their reactionary social function.
Also finally “We believe that the rule of law, a cornerstone of our democracy, is not being observed by the authorities” Trollololol don’t know where to begin to disect the naivety and false assumptions here.