Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

RIP Sarah Everard, who went missing from Brixton in March 2021


Here is Bindmans webpage- they worked for the Vigil organisers against the Met.

It contains pdf of the submssion to the Judge.

What is interesting is that initially - from emails that Bindmans have in the pdf - that local police were prepared to work with the organisers. Two of the organisers were local Cllrs. Lambeth Council ( Clapham Common is in Lambeth) supported idea of a vigil. Lambeth Council were prepared to help. So looks to me this could have been well organised one hour vigil with social distancing.

It was only later the Met said no.

On the blanket ban on Protest. In front of Judge the Met legal team said was not the case. Which tbf I find contradictory. As it is clear that is what they told organisers.

Bindman argue that the Human Rights Acts ( which protects freedom of expression and assembly) is primary legislation and that secondary legislation like the Covid legislation has to be compatible with it. HRA comes first.

So under the covid legislation of reasonable excuse the Met could have allowed a vigil. The HRA rights come first.

Its an important argument. Looking at the HRA excerpts in Bindmans pdf and the whole point of the HRA is to enshrine rights of individual against the state. The judgement call is to err in favour of peaceful protest. Its important part of democracy.

The pandemic is testing these important principles.
 
Last edited:
I think the problem here is that the bar was quite low for the police to meet. They just had to consider the balance between the HRA and the Covid laws when deciding whether or not to allow the vigil to go ahead.

It sounds like the police changed their tune (presumably on legal advice) as to whether or not it was a blanket ban.

It’s now clear that a blanket ban is against the HRA but as long as the police consider the HRA then they can go ahead and ban, which is where we are.
 
I think the problem here is that the bar was quite low for the police to meet. They just had to consider the balance between the HRA and the Covid laws when deciding whether or not to allow the vigil to go ahead.

It sounds like the police changed their tune (presumably on legal advice) as to whether or not it was a blanket ban.

It’s now clear that a blanket ban is against the HRA but as long as the police consider the HRA then they can go ahead and ban, which is where we are.

Its to late for this vigil.

My question is why police changed their tune.

It was Bindmans challenging them that made them change their tune. Police must have had legal advice before about blanket bans. Thing about the police is that they push the envelope in their favour as much as they can. Scaring people with fines works. Hoping no one takes costly legal action to question them.

Probably surprised the Cops that the organisers got overnight the funds to take them on so quickly.

Its a good reminder that however much local police are friendly the Met as an organisation is not the peoples friend.
 
Last edited:
Another thing. My experience of legal stuff is some of it depends on the Judge one gets on the day. Different Judges interpret the law in different way. This one did not want to "interfere" with the police.

And how the HRA vs Covid legislation is interpretated is what legal argument is for. Its a judgement call. Its also political. Another reminder is that the Police are a political organisation. They are not neutral.
 
He'll soon be remanded to custody. Probably need to be on a nonce wing to protect him from other prisoners, and 24 hour a day monitoring to prevent him harming himself. There'll be understandable outrage if he somehow avoids answering these charges in court.
I hope they're going to take extra precautions, because it might be convenient for some that he doesn't have to face charges in court...perhaps not least the suspect himself.

In particular, because I suspect that the investigations could well highlight other offences.
 
I hope they're going to take extra precautions, because it might be convenient for some that he doesn't have to face charges in court...perhaps not least the suspect himself.

In particular, because I suspect that the investigations could well highlight other offences.
Honestly, I think the MPS would rather be seen bringing him to justice, now. Especially as any failings are very unlikely to affect anyone powerful enough to orchestrate any harm befalling him.
 
Honestly, I think the MPS would rather be seen bringing him to justice, now. Especially as any failings are very unlikely to affect anyone powerful enough to orchestrate any harm befalling him.
Yep, I don't think it will be them. But prisons are full of people (and not just the inmates) who tend not to regard the niceties of trials as especially relevant.

And, of course, there is also the strong possibility that the suspect may have his own reasons for not wanting to see the process through...
 
Yep, I don't think it will be them. But prisons are full of people (and not just the inmates) who tend not to regard the niceties of trials as especially relevant.

Yeah. And that would be a further blow to her family. Fingers crossed he doesn't get an easy out (by his own hand or someone else's).
 
The vigil on Clapham Common today has been cancelled. :(
I imagine that there's nothing to stop significant numbers of small, socially distanced groups of people going anyway?

I wonder what it must be like for policemen and women to find themselves having to suppress a vigil that, in all likelihood, many of them will support?
 
Eek, you can tell these aren't experienced protest organisers. Sure, cancel it on paper to protect yourselves if you must, but no need to actively discourage people from going. Protests don't involve doing everything the police says.

One problem is most people don't know that a lot of protests that happen don't get police permission or are actively sabotaged by the police. The myth of freedom of assembly is still strong.
 
Back
Top Bottom