Extinction Rebellion Wins Ruling on Bans by London Police

(Bloomberg) -- A London judge ruled Wednesday that the capital's police were wrong to effectively ban demonstrations by Extinction Rebellion last month, as authorities said they spent more than 24 million pounds ($31 million) on officers trying to prevent the city from coming to a standstill.

The police improperly removed protesters by treating several separate demonstrations as one continuous public assembly, Judge James Dingemans ruled, saying “the decision to impose the condition was unlawful because there was no power to impose it.”

The case was brought by environmental campaigners and lawmakers and the ruling may allow protesters improperly detained to apply for compensation. The Metropolitan Police said it made more than 1,800 arrests over the 10 days of demonstrations, and used nearly 8,000 of its own officers and drafted in 1,000 from surrounding forces.

“After more than a week of serious disruption in London both to communities and across our partner agencies, and taking account of the enormous ongoing effort by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service and across the U.K. to police the protest, we firmly believed that the continuation of the situation was untenable,” Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave said in a statement.

Extinction Rebellion, described as an “environmental pressure movement” by its lawyers, held two weeks of protests in London including at the Bank of England, Blackrock Inc., public transport and government buildings. Its aim was to force governmental action on climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and the risk of social and economic collapse, lawyer Philippa Kaufmann told the court two weeks ago.

On Oct. 14, police placed conditions on the demonstrations, ordering them to cease protests or risk the possibility of arrest and prosecution. Police accepted its desired effect was to end the uprising but that it was lawful and necessary to limit widespread disruption in the city, their lawyer Ian Skelt told the court.

“It vindicates our belief that the police's blanket ban on our protests was an unprecedented and unlawful infringement on the right to protest,” Tobias Garnett, a human rights lawyer for Extinction Rebellion, said. “Rather than wasting its time and money seeking to silence and criminalize those who are drawing its attention to the climate and ecological emergency, we call on the government to act now on the biggest threat to our planet.”

The main issue was whether the protest could be considered to be a single continuous assembly. The demonstration comprised a number of separate gatherings across London and the order can only be applied to a single assembly, Kaufmann said. Skelt argued the protest had been publicized as a single event aimed to cause “intentional civil disobedience.”

Dingemans said as the gatherings were separated by time and many miles, even if co-ordinated under the umbrella of one body, they didn't count as a public assembly, rendering the ban unlawful.

Those not charged with other offenses can now sue for false imprisonment and may be entitled to compensation, Extinction Rebellion said.

--With assistance from Jeremy Hodges.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ellen Milligan in London at emilligan11@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net, Christopher Elser

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.