Joseph Wright v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Jay |
| Judgment Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 2739 (QB) |
| Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/13/0019 |
[2013] EWHC 2739 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Jay
Case No: TLQ/13/0019
Hugh Southey QC (instructed by Irvine Thanvi Natas Solicitors) for the Claimant
George Thomas (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 24th & 25th July 2013
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Introduction
Mr Joseph Wright ("the Claimant") claims damages at common law (for false imprisonment, assault and battery) and under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (for breaches of his rights under Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention) in relation to his containment in a police pen between shortly after 09:27 and 10:42 on 30 th March 2011. The Claimant, and approximately 40 others, was demonstrating outside Chatham House against the President of the State of Israel, Mr Shimon Peres. The demonstration was organised by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. This case raises an important issue of principle for the Claimant and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis ("the Defendant") notwithstanding that the amount of money at stake is small.
I should say at the outset that this claim is decidedly not about the merits and conduct of the State of Israel, Mr Peres, the Palestinian cause generally or the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in particular. To the fair to the parties and to all the witnesses, no one sought to maintain that it was. This case is about the extent of police powers in these sorts of circumstances, and to that extent it is adventitious that the target of the demonstration was Mr Peres. However, it is argued by the Defendant that the background is relevant inasmuch as it frames the context, most pertinently the strength of feeling in some quarters against Israel and its Head of State. Plainly, I must bear those matters in mind, although I prefer to do so in the context of the United Kingdom rather than what has happened in the Middle East over the years.
Further, I have to bear in mind that this is a claim brought by one named Claimant who attended this demonstration; this is not multi-party litigation, still less a Group Action. The focus will be on the particular, but in order to see the whole picture one also needs to discern the contours of the general.
It is convenient to divide this judgment into Chapters. Chapter 1 will comprise a narration of what happened on the day. Chapter 2 will explain the governing legal principles. Chapter 3 will set out the issues which arise. Chapter 4 will examine the evidence of the Claimant and his witnesses, and will supply what might be described as the Claimant's perspective. Chapter 5 will view the matter from the Police perspective. And Chapter 6 will set out my findings of fact (to the extent that they have not previously been covered), my analysis of the issues, and my conclusions.
The Events of 30 th March 2011
At 10:23 on 29 th March 2011 the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign sent an email to the relevant Defendant email address explaining its intention to hold what it described as a picket outside Chatham House in St James' Square the following day [58]. The email further explained that ' this is to be a static and peaceful event, with banners, placards, targeting the presence of Shimon Peres'. For reasons which are unclear, there was no reply to this email, albeit there was no evidence that it had not been received.
However, it is quite clear that the Defendant preparing for all foreseeable eventualities in the context of this event, which was a seminar recognising 60 years of British-Israeli diplomatic relations. Aside from Mr Peres, the attendees were to include the Israeli Ambassador and the Foreign Secretary. Mr Peres was to give the keynote speech at some point between 09:15 and 10:00, after which he would depart [114].
The 'Service Operation Order' starting at [98] shows that the overall threat to the event was 'low' although the threat to the Principal (i.e. Mr Peres) was assessed as 'moderate' (note the slightly different wording at [99] and [220]). Although at the time the Order was prepared the Defendant had no specific intimation that the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign would be in attendance, this was clearly in prospect [220]:
" If protests are arranged during the Presidential visit there [sic] are more likely to be either at Chatham House for the conference on 60 years of Anglo-Israeli diplomacy or … . Neither the PSC not the StWC has been significantly active against events attended by prominent Israelis in recent months nor have they indicated a willingness to protest at this event. Activists from both groups are able to respond quickly to call-outs and should they decide to protest can mobilise a group of vociferous but generally law-abiding demonstrators. Further Israeli action in Gaza will increase the likelihood of these groups conducting anti-Israeli protests that may find the presence of Shimon Peres a target of opportunity. "
The police security operation was codenamed 'Operation Fieldgate', with the Gold Commander being Chief Superintendent Johnson, the Silver Superintendent Bird and the Bronze Chief Inspector Stephen Osborn. CI Osborn and other officers from Westminster were at the scene from about 07:45 (registration for the conference was due to start at 08:15). Metal barriers had been ordered so that a protest pen could be set up before the arrival of any protesters, but owing to traffic congestion engendered by a motorcycle protest in Trafalgar Square these were delayed. Thus, when the protesters did start to arrive at approximately 08:30 they were not confined to one particular area. However, the video evidence shows that, in the main, they kept to the pavement and to the empty parking bays (parking suspension notices had been installed) opposite the main entrance to Chatham House but not directly adjacent to it. Although I was not given the exact dimensions of the location, I deduce that the main group of demonstrators were a pavement's width and the majority of a road's width away from the front entrance.
The video shows a reasonably orderly and good natured demonstration, although the chants were pointed and ad hominem. By way of example, ' Shimon Peres you can't hide, we charge you with Genocide'. Subsequently, there were calls for Mr Peres and others to be arrested. I should emphasise that the Claimant and others were fully entitled to use language of this nature in the exercise of their rights of free speech and free association.
CI Osborne was concerned that, in the absence of barriers, there was an insufficient police presence at the scene: at approximately 09:00 he therefore asked Superintendent Bird for additional officers to be sent, and these arrived at about 09:15. Shortly before then the barriers arrived and these were installed more or less where the protesters were already (although slightly to the left of the main group, orientation being defined by the video camera viewing the front door of Chatham House). In essence, the 'pen' comprised the railings in the centre of the Square and three mobile barriers set at right angles to each adjacent barrier.
The video footage for 09:17 shows that the majority of the protesters were prepared to enter the pen (one side had been left open to enable that to happen) without cajolement. However, a relatively small number were not. The transcript of the video soundtrack shows that demonstrators were being firmly encouraged to enter the pen ' because that's what the barriers are for'. On occasion, this was expressed as advice; on others, the language used was more prescriptive (e.g. ' you can't protest here that's where you have to protest'), and on at least one occasion it was indicated that if the protester did not enter the pen she would be arrested. Paragraph 9 of CI Osborn's witness statement at [260] explains that he was very concerned about ' the degeneration of the situation' and if the barriered area was not used in line with its purpose then this protester would have to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. The transcript also shows that one female demonstrator (possibly the same one mentioned by CI Osborn) pointed out that ' we aren't breaching any peace', at which point the police officer stated that the pen was also there for their own safety.
Meanwhile, the Claimant had not entered the pen. He had worked out that Mr Peres might not be entering through the front door at all; there is a side entrance in Duke of York Street. I set out relevant parts of the transcript for 09:27:
"O: do you mind going into the pen?
C: who are you [the officer was in plain clothes] … err, for what reason?
O: because we want to make sure that there's you know, safety for everybody. We've got a lot of traffic here, it's the middle of the morning.
C: I'll be on the pavement.
O: but do you mind going in there, though?
C: I would rather not because I have a feeling he's coming this way so I want to make sure he can see there's a protest, do you know what I mean. So, I don't want to cause any disruption
O: fellers, can you go into the pen, please, that is what it's there for, OK. You are not going to cause any disruption but you can go into the pen.
C: but for what reason?
O: for the reason what I don't want any breach of the peace, we've got a lot of traffic here and, as you know, we've a lot of important people wanting to come around the place. So if you can go in there
…
C: Shimon Peres is coming this way [shouting]
…
O: In the pen, please mate, thank you very much. And this is to prevent you causing a potential breach of the peace, OK. In the pen. Go into the pen … he's not because that's where you are supposed to be. Can you stop...
To continue reading
Request your trial