Proportionate? The Metropolitan Police Service Response to the Sarah Everard Vigil
| Author | Ashley J. Lowerson |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
| Date | 01 August 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183221101957 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Proportionate? The Metropolitan
Police Service Response to the Sarah
Everard Vigil
Leigh v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
[2022] EWHC 527 (Admin)
Keywords
Freedom of Expression, Assembly and Association, Covid-19 Regulations, Unlawful
Gatherings, Police Response
This judicial review case before the High Court of Justice concerned members of a collective called
#ReclaimTheseStreets which planned to hold a vigil on Clapham Common on 13 March 2021, in memory
of Sarah Everard. Ms Everard was murdered on the 3 March 2021 while walking home from Clapham to
Brixton Hill, in South London. Wayne Couzens, a serving Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer later
pleaded guilty to Sarah Everard’s kidnap, rape, and murder. This case is about events on and between
Wednesday 10 March and Saturday 13 March 2021, a week after Sarah Everard’s disappearance, and
before Couzens’conviction. The planned vigil on 13 March 2021 was to highlight risks to women’s
safety and to campaign for changes in attitudes and responses to violence against women.
The vigil was advertised by the claimants, with large numbers showing an interest in attending. At this
time, the Covid-19 regulations in force restricted the holding of a gathering of more than 30 persons in a
public outdoor place in a Tier 4 area, such as London was designated at the relevant time. The Health
Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Obligations of Undertakings) (England)
(Amendment) Regulations 2020, SI No. 1611 introduced enhanced tier restrictions and made it a
crime to contravene these restrictions “without a reasonable excuse”and gave the police power to
arrest and/or serve a fixed penalty notice, imposing a fine up to £10,000 on someone they reasonably sus-
pected of committing such an offence. However, any ‘person would have a reasonable excuse, and so
would not commit an offence, if their conduct was a lawful exercise of the rights to freedom of expression
and freedom of assembly protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR).
Guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’Council on Tier 4 Restrictions (8 March 2021), in
Version 9 of the MPS’s“Gold Strategy Op Pima”(8 January 2021) and in an “open letter”from the
MPS (21 December 2020) outlined the direction officers should take regarding policing throughout
the tier restrictions. Policing, particularly in relation to gatherings, would depend upon a proportionality
assessment that took account of relevant factors, based on a fact-specific enquiry. The burden of proving
that there was no such lawful excuse lay on the prosecution. A lawful decision to prosecute or issue a
fixed penalty notice would require consideration of whether that burden could be discharged.
The claimants’case was that over the three-day period between 10 March 2021 and 13 March 2021 the
MPS were incorrect in repeatedly deciding, based on the Covid-19 Regulations and supplementary
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 86(4) 287–291
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183221101957
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial