QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
|The Queen (on the application of Brian Hicks and Others)
|- and -
|Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
|The Queen (on the application of M (a child by his litigation friend N))
|- and -
|Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
|The Queen (on the application of Hannah Pearce and Another)
|- and -
|Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
|Vanina Chiarello and Others
|The Queen (on the application of Theodora Middleton and Another)
|- and -
|Bromley Magistrates Court
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Alex Bailin QC and Ruth Brander (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for M and the Pearce claimants
Stephen Cragg (instructed by Tuckers) for the Middleton claimants
Sam Grodzinski QC and Mark Summers (instructed by Metropolitan Police Legal Services) for the Commissioner in the Hicks, M and Pearce claims
Russell Fortt for the Commissioner in the Middleton claim
Hearing dates: 28 May 2 June 2012
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS :
|THE POLICING CONTEXT||11|
|The command structure||13|
|The police strategy and briefing documents||17|
|The immediate background to the arrests and searches||25|
|THE FACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASES||30|
|The Hicks claim||30|
|The Starbucks claimants||34|
|The second zombie claimant||46|
|The Charing Cross claimants||54|
|The M claim||72|
|The Pearce claim||85|
|The Middleton claim||103|
|THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK||120|
|Freedom of expression and assembly||120|
|Breach of the peace||128|
|THE ALLEGATION OF AN UNLAWFUL POLICY OR PRACTICE||142|
|THE HICKS CLAIM||156|
|Ground 1: unlawful policy or practice||156|
|Ground 2: no imminent breach of the peace||158|
|Ground 3: arrest was disproportionate||171|
|Ground 4: fettering of discretion||173|
|Ground 5: breach of Convention rights||178|
|THE M CLAIM||193|
|Ground 1: unlawful policy or practice||194|
|Ground 2: unlawful stop and search||195|
|Ground 3: unlawful arrest||198|
|Ground 4: unlawful taking of DNA, etc.||209|
|Ground 5: unlawful retention of DNA, etc.||217|
|THE PEARCE CLAIM||227|
|Ground 1(a): ulterior motive||228|
|Ground 1(b): search for material outside warrants||239|
|Grounds 2 and 3: breach of Convention rights||248|
|THE MIDDLETON CLAIM||250|
|Ground 1: warrant obtained by misleading information etc.||251|
|Ground 2: magistrates erred in issuing warrant||258|
|Ground 3: breach of ss.15 and 16 of PACE||264|
|Ground 4: breach of Convention rights||269|
(1) (a) the defendant operated an unlawful policy or practice on the ground of pre-emptively arresting those (including the claimants) who were viewed by his officers as being likely to express anti-monarchist views, without proper regard for the lawful preconditions for such arrests; (b) the defendant operated an impermissibly low threshold of tolerance for public protest in central London on the day of the Royal Wedding;
(2) the arresting officers did not (at the material time or at all) apprehend an imminent breach of the peace and/or there were no reasonable grounds for apprehending an imminent breach of the peace;
(3) the decisions to arrest the claimants were a wholly disproportionate response to any perceived threat;
(4) the defendant unlawfully fettered the discretion of his officers on the ground by instructing them (via commanding officers) to pre-emptively arrest the claimants;
(5) the defendant's actions in arresting and detaining the claimants breached their rights under arts. 5, 8, 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
(1) (a) the defendant operated an unlawful policy or practice on the ground and/or exercised his powers for an ulterior motive, in pre-emptively stopping and searching and arresting those (including the claimant) whom he suspected of seeking to express anti-monarchist views, without proper regard to the lawful preconditions for such searches and arrests; (b) the defendant operated an impermissibly low threshold of tolerance for the public expression of anti-monarchist views;
(2) the stop and search of the claimant was unlawful in that (a) it was conducted pursuant to an unlawful policy or practice on the ground and/or it was an exercise of police powers for an ulterior purpose, namely the suppression of embarrassing, unpopular or unwelcome (but not unlawful) protest, (b) there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting the claimant to be in possession of items to be used for destroying or damaging property; (c) it was contrary to his rights under arts. 5, 8, 10, 11 and 14 ECHR;
(3) the claimant's arrest was unlawful in that (a) it was conducted pursuant to an unlawful policy etc., (b) there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting the claimant to be committing or to be about to commit a criminal offence, (c) there were no reasonable grounds for believing that it was necessary to arrest the claimant for any of the reasons set out in s.24(5) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE"), (d) the decision to arrest the claimant was disproportionate, (e) it was contrary to his rights under arts. 5, 8, 10, 11 and 14 ECHR;
(4) the taking of the claimant's DNA, fingerprints and photographs was unlawful in that (a) the power to take such material is contingent on there having been a lawful arrest but the claimant's arrest was unlawful for the reasons given above, (b) the defendant operated a blanket policy in respect of the decision to take the claimant's material and failed to exercise any discretion, (c) if, contrary to the claimant's primary submission, the defendant exercised discretion in deciding to take the claimant's material, the exercise of that discretion was Wednesbury unreasonable and contrary to the claimant's rights under art. 8 ECHR;
(5) the refusal to destroy the claimant's DNA, fingerprints and photographs is unlawful in that (a) the power to retain such material is contingent on there having been a lawful arrest, (b) the defendant has failed to give any or any proper consideration to the claimant's request that his material be destroyed, (c) if, contrary to the claimant's primary submission, the defendant exercised discretion in deciding to retain the claimant's material, he did so in accordance with unlawful guidance.
(1) the searches were unlawful and contrary to ss.15 and 16 of PACE because the police (a) had an ulterior motive when executing each warrant, and/or (b) were looking for material outside the terms of each warrant;
(2) the searches violated art. 8 ECHR;
(3) the searches violated art.14 ECHR.
(1) the search warrant was obtained on the basis of misleading, inaccurate or insufficient information, and/or the defendant had an ulterior purpose in applying for it;
(2) the magistrates did not have reasonable cause for the grant of the warrant, and the warrant was drawn too widely;
(3) the search was in breach of ss.15 and 16 of PACE;
(4) the search was in breach of arts. 8 and 14 ECHR.
THE POLICING CONTEXT
The command structure
The police strategy and briefing documents
"Provide a lawful and proportionate policing response to protest, balancing the needs and rights of protesters with those impacted by the protest
- Freedoms of assembly and expression are key elements to protest and are fundamental elements to our democracy. We must be careful that our actions do not dissuade people from feeling they can assemble or express their views;
- The use of police powers, both from legislation and from common law, will be considered in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 ;
- We accept that protest may, at times, cause a level of obstruction and disruption to everyday activity .
- Any force used will be proportionate and only to the extent reasonably necessary .
Minimise opportunities to commit crime and take proportionate steps to deal appropriately with offenders if crime is committed
- If offences are committed, our response will be proportionate. Arrests will only be made at the time if the necessity criteria are met and the offence is so serious that the disposal by summons, FPN or warning is not appropriate .
Maintain public order
- This is a core responsibility of police. It is our duty to minimise disruption from unlawful actions;
- Where there is a breach of the peace or the risk of an imminent breach of the peace, we will take proportionate action or apply conditions to individuals, or groups as necessary ."
"The MPS of course recognises that freedoms to protest and to demonstrate are key parts of our democratic tradition, and now enshrined within the Human Rights Act. Our policing of such spontaneous events will ensure that they are contained in a manner appropriate to the demeanour of the protesters and at the [same] time ensuring the security of the processional route."
Police interventions will at all times be lawful and proportionate and for a legitimate purpose. As stated above this event is one of celebration and solemnity. The tipping point for harassment alarm or distress may be lower in this environment than it would be in other [sic], for example outside a football match or in a town centre at closing time. Officers will be briefed to consider this when judging the behaviour of people .
Nothing in this plan is designed to interfere with the discretion of individual officers to exercise their powers where it is lawful, proportionate and necessary to do so. However, Bronzes must satisfy themselves that, through proper briefing, officers understand the intention of the whole operation and the impact the actions of individual officers can have on the delivery of the event.
Before arresting any individual the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality will be key considerations. An officer must be satisfied that there is a clear, legal basis to exercise that power and to consider if his or her actions is fair and balanced given the circumstances. This includes satisfying the necessary criteria under Section 24(5) of PACE."
"I also have a substantial number of public order trained officers around the periphery of this ceremonial area under the command of Commander Mick Johnson. They are looking for potential demonstrators coming towards this event or dealing with any potential disorder should it occur outside of the ceremonial footprint."
"The role of the outer footprint Reserves will be to intercept and deal with autonomous groups making their way to the main event foot-print who have the intention of disrupting the event and/or committing criminal acts.
The ethos of the policing activity will be about proportionate policing with a view to preventing those intent on disruption of the event/criminality from getting in to the ceremonial area and, if need be, lawfully detaining individuals and groups in order to prevent such disruption/criminality."
"It has come to light that intelligence currently exists that some protest groups, intent on disruption of the Royal Wedding , intend to meet in Soho Square at around 1000hrs , engage in protest and then march to the ceremonial area via Piccadilly.
Police will facilitate peaceful protest in Soho Square and will work with organisers and participants to ensure that this occurs. However, given the events of the day and in accordance with Gold's strategy, such groups intent upon disorder will not be allowed to process into/towards the ceremonial area for the following reasons:
- Any procession which may take place will have failed to comply with Section 11 Public Order Act 1986
- Without pre-judging the intelligence available at the prevailing time, the MPS is fully aware (from recent significant disorder) that the groups advertising this location as a convergence/meeting site are likely to engage in disorder/commit offences
- The likely conduct of such a group, coupled with the huge numbers of people and event taking place is likely to lead to a breach of the peace if they are allowed to process/engage in disruption, disorder, public nuisance or other criminality.
As such, every effort will be made to ensure any such individuals or groups intent on such disruption, disorder, public nuisance or other criminality remain in Soho Square where, as stated above, peaceful protest will be facilitated.
Where uniformed police officers are deployed to police the demonstrators in Soho Square, BX 14.1.2 will implement proportionate tactics to ensure peaceful protest is facilitated in the square and to ensure any use of powers (i.e. use of Section 14, arrest tactics) is lawfully achieved ."
The immediate background to the arrests and searches
"My understanding of the intelligence I received was that there was a small number of planned and organised events, together with a number of spontaneous demonstrations that were being planned via social websites. At this time there were numerous non-specific (in terms of locations/times) events being mooted mainly over the internet, with a couple of events, 'Right Royal Orgy or Zombie Wedding' and an anti-wedding event in Red Lion Square. As the actual aims and intentions of these were unknown, with no recognisable organiser, it was impossible to interpret whether they were going to be peaceful. However, some of the phraseology used seemed to suggest that there would be activity aimed at disrupting the events such as sit down in roads, occupations of buildings, climbing onto the roofs or exterior of public buildings or, outside the immediate ceremonial area, the smashing of shop windows in, for example, the West End. One of the leaflets referred to throwing maggots at the Royal Procession."
"The aim of this activity was to bring forward police investigative activity in relation to investigations which were already underway (for example, the search for Operation Brontide suspects suspects wanted for disorder offences on the day of the TUC March on 26 March 2011) and especially where it related to individuals who were believed, or where it was reasonable to believe, that they could also be planning similar criminal activity at the Royal Wedding. The outcome of this activity was therefore designed to be twofold: (i) to accelerate investigations into matters already under investigation or suspected (e.g. in relation to 'Brontide' offences) and (ii) to prevent those same individuals from carrying out the plans which we suspected they did have to try to disrupt or commit offences on the day of the royal wedding. The reason why the squats in Camberwell and elsewhere and their occupants were of concern to us was that intelligence showed that Brontide suspects might be living at these squats and a squat on Curzon Street had been used as a 'convergence centre' or gathering point for disorder offences on 26 March 2011."
THE FACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASES
The Hicks claim
"6. He wore a bulky jacket and I noticed that his left hand jacket pocket appeared to protrude or bulge. He also kept putting his hands into the pockets of his trousers and jacket for no apparent reason. I have worked in the public order field of policing for more than ten years and I have knowledge and experience of anarchists taking spontaneous action against property or persons and on this occasion I suspected Mr Hicks might be in the process of planning an individual direct action of criminal damage against the shops on Charing Cross Road. In particular, I believed that he might have articles concealed on him to cause criminal damage. Such articles could either be tools to smash or damage shop windows or paint bombs (i.e. thin skinned containers of paint which break on impact) and which cause extensive paint damage when thrown. I was concerned at what might be bulging beneath his jacket and what would be in his pockets."
"8. I then conducted a search of Mr Hicks and found he had a large packet of biscuits in his jacket pocket. He had a large comb protruding from his jeans pocket and had two mobile phones. The search began at about 9.05am and whilst I conducted it, he confirmed he was making his way to Trafalgar Square.
9. I was aware that there was some intelligence that anarchists and other protest groups had advertised their intention to meet up at this location (Trafalgar Square) not to protest but to actively disrupt the Royal Wedding and to make clear their objections to the wedding in the form of direct, disruptive action. This could take the form of items being thrown. I was also aware that none of the anarchist groups had co-operated with Scotland Yard to discuss or seek permission for any gathering or assembly or march or protests and that the intelligence background included that other pro-Royal Family groups (which might include the English Defence League) would counteract and challenge any actions taken by any anti monarchy or anarchist group. This would mean almost immediate violence as soon as the groups met which could quickly spread to involve large numbers given the crowds expected in Trafalgar Square. Police had a duty to prevent such violence breaking out if they could.
10. I requested Mr Hicks to sit in a nearby police carrier so I could look through his pockets more thoroughly .
11. Mr Hicks co-operated and was calm, causing me no issues. The search concluded in the carrier and I found no articles for use in causing criminal damage.
12. I then had reason to consider my instructions concerning known activists and the balance of probabilities that they were present at the wedding not to celebrate but to objectively try to disrupt the wedding which would have serious consequences for the safety of the event as a whole and which was to be attended by thousands. Also, a simple 'direct action' taken by him (a smashed window or daubed slogan) would have an enormous ripple effect causing serious harm to those in large groups nearby or cause others present to react against it. I spoke to Chief Inspector Dale and to Commander Johnson over my mobile phone. We assessed that it was necessary to arrest him now because if he got into Trafalgar Square and met up with others who were equipped to cause damage or harm a breach of the peace would break out and this needed to be prevented.
13. I assessed the facts known to me at the time and, in company with my long history of knowledge of Mr Hicks and his involvement in all major protest which elapsed into serious disorder because of anarchist actions, I considered how best I could prevent this incident from happening and from Mr Hicks becoming involved, orchestrating direct actions and encouraging anarchist direct actions. By 'direct action' I mean damage to property or an invasion of premises.
14. I considered all the relevant intelligence, Mr Hicks' own admission he was going to Trafalgar Square to meet up with others but his failure to expand on this and I knew this was a gathering spot for those wishing to disrupt the event. This was not an issue of peaceful protest but of dealing with an individual who would involve himself with any disruption that was happening. As at recent events I had policed, the TUC March and Student Protests had both resulted in violence, damage to property and injuries to police and to other persons. I realised and decided that Mr Hicks had to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace as I now reasonably anticipated that his presence anywhere closer to Trafalgar Square would cause harm. This harm would be to those persons involved in the Royal Wedding itself, those persons present as Royal Wedding supporters, police officers dealing with security issues and any opposing factions or groups looking to respond to anarchist groups attempting to disrupt the events.
15. Therefore as no breach of the peace had yet taken place, I formed the honest and reasonable grounds that I had to arrest Mr Hicks because in view of all my intelligence and knowledge of him, a breach of the peace involving Mr Hicks would be committed in the immediate future by him and that harm either to persons or property in their presence was a real likelihood. The fact that his intended destination was Trafalgar Square and his intention was to meet with others confirmed to me that he would associate with others intent on disrupting the event and that this would be a catalyst for harm (i.e. injury or damage)."
The Starbucks claimants
"9. To get away from traffic noise, observe the stop and avoid being overheard, I walked up and down on the pavement opposite describing the scene over the telephone. The people stopped were passive and appeared co-operative. I was instructed to arrest those stopped for breach of the peace. These instructions were given on behalf of Commander Johnson who was aware of the incident. I asked for grounds and was told the following: The group were part of an anti-monarchy demonstration who had turned up to the royal wedding with the intention of causing disruption. They were in an area near to where senior members of the royal family would be in 20 minutes time and some had their identities concealed. They were to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace by acting in a manner that would provoke others into violence. It was my understanding at that time that they had not yet committed a breach of the peace but that as their behaviour had been monitored, it was reasonably believed that they would commit or cause one in the immediate future if not detained.
10. I have now seen that the Control Room had some information (the zombie wedding leaflet) that those dressed as zombies would attempt to gather at Westminster Abbey at 11am, if they could, to throw maggots as confetti at the royal wedding procession. If I had been given this detail it would have been clearer to me what the anticipated breach of the peace was and I could have briefed my serial and Insp Antoine accordingly. I had been told at a briefing by Chief Insp Woolford at Islington Police Station in the very early morning of 29 April 2011 that some groups were believed to have the intent to throw stuff at the royal wedding and police might be instructed to intervene to prevent this.
11. In the earlier briefing given by Chief Inspector Woolford I was told that, where possible, arrests were to be made by Level 3 (foot duty) officers so that Level 2 public order trained officers would be available for redeployment. Nearby was Inspector Antoine, from Enfield Borough, who was in charge of a Level 3 serial number 1446 and I spoke to him, asking him to wait.
12. I contacted Superintendent Morgan by telephone and then went to speak to him nearby. I was instructed to use serial 1446 to make the arrests. I relayed this to Inspector Antoine, telling him the grounds for arresting all 5 persons under common law for breach of the peace and he went on to brief and deploy serial 1446."
"6. I then spoke to Inspector Dixon in person and was informed that he had spoken to Commander Johnson and my serial were to carry out the arrest of the persons identified as Zombies so as not to tie up the Level 2 serial. Inspector Dixon stated that the persons stopped had been observed by plain clothes TSG units committing a breach of the peace in Soho Square. I was not told what the breach of the peace was. Information had also been received that the group were intending to go within the processional route within the next 20 minutes with the intention of disrupting the Royal Wedding. The persons identified as Zombies were to be arrested for Breach of the Peace and under no circumstances were to be released at that time. My understanding was that if the group known as the zombies were released, they would go on to disrupt the Royal Wedding in front of the world's media.
7. I then relayed this information in person to the arresting officers who then arrested the persons concerned."
"On Friday 29th April 2011 I was on duty in full uniform posted to serial 1446B designated foot patrols in Oxford Street W1 to detect & prevent Anti-Demonstrations against the Royal Wedding. At about 1205 our serial have made our way to Oxford Street J/W Soho St, W1 re a group of people who had been stopped by Serial 1412 as the group were dressed as zombies & who were suspected of about to cause a demonstration against the Royal family. Myself and the other officers were informed that the group dressed as zombies had already attended a demonstration in Soho Square W1 and the group were on their way to another demonstration where the Royal family would be present and they would be causing a breach of the peace. On the authority of Commander Johnson to prevent a breach of the peace the group were to be arrested."
The information given by PC Portlock to the custody officer was that the claimant was "stopped as part of an ongoing demonstration against the Royal Wedding. Believed [person detained] was intending to disrupt the celebrations by Buckingham Palace".
"It was believed suspected the group were to attend a later location to disrupt the Royal Wedding celebration, whereby likely anticipated to apprehend cause a breach of the peace. The authorisation to arrest came from Insp Dixon via Commander ops via GT."
The information given by PC Babbage to the custody officer was that the claimant was "believed to be a member of a demonstration gathering against the Royal Wedding, believed to be on her way to the Royal Wedding to demonstrate, it was feared by the Police Officers that a disturbance would result with injury or damage".
"On Friday 29th April 2011 I was on duty in full uniform posted to serial 1446B re foot patrols in Oxford Street W1 as part of Anti Demonstration patrols re the Royal Wedding. At about 1205 I along with other officers from my serial attended Oxford St J/W Soho St W1 re a group of people stopped who were suspected of about to cause a breach of the peace involving some sort of demonstration. It was explained to myself and other officers that the group dressed as zombies who already attended a large gathering in Soho Square and that this group were suspected of gathering to cause trouble / BOP. On the authority of Commander Johnson to prevent a BOP the group were to be arrested."
PC Hemmings wrote that he informed the claimant of the grounds of arrest in these terms: "It is suspected that you are likely to cause a breach of the peace due to a gathering you attended and the way you are dressed ". The information he gave to the custody officer was that the claimant was "seen to be a member of a group demonstrating against the Royal Wedding, believed to be on route to another demonstration against the Royal Wedding where serious disturbance or injuries could be caused".
"At approx 1155 hours we received a call on our personal radios to attend o/s Starbucks Oxford Street/Soho St W1 to assist serial S1412 who had 5 zombies stopped that needed to be arrested on authority of Commander Johnson. Upon our arrival we were met by Insp Antoine who briefed us. He said the group of zombies had been in Soho Sq where a protest was taking place, they then left, went to Starbucks and were believed to be heading to a further location along the royal route in approx 20 mins time believed to protest."
PC Edgar wrote that she informed the claimant of the grounds of arrest in these terms: "I'm arresting you to prevent a further [breach of the peace] as I have received information that you have already been seen at a protest in Soho Square and we believe you are moving onto another location on the royal route and may cause a breach of the peace". The information she gave to the custody officer was that the claimant was "part of a group seen earlier and fear that [she] and others would cause breach of the peace by attending Royal Wedding route".
" I gave him an overview of the events that were occurring and reminded him of the intelligence that groups, possibly dressed as zombies, had advertised their intention to undertake action to disrupt the Royal Wedding. I cannot remember if this was specific around the throwing of maggots. The nature of these acts were likely to result in a breach of the peace, or would in themselves be an attack on those engaged on the wedding or engaged in protecting the Royal Wedding party. This conversation was specifically that these people had gathered as a group at or near Soho Square which was a known assembly point for anti monarchy groups. This group had now left that location and were making their way towards the processional route and inner cordons. This suggested they did have the intention to try to get to the processional route. I asked the supervisor to consider if arrest was necessary to prevent an imminent breach of the peace."
The second zombie claimant
" we were also told to look out for potential breaches of the peace for which the police response would be pre-emptive, if necessary, and zero tolerance of potential disorder. While acknowledging the right to peaceful protest, the vast majority of the crowds that day would be supportive of the wedding and therefore there was a concern that, potentially, any public display of anti-wedding sentiment in the faces of that supportive crowd could lead to breaches of the peace. (By this I mean fights breaking out.) Moreover, on the basis of recent events, those displaying anti-wedding views might well be intending to disrupt the wedding itself, if they could."
"7. I was informed that the TSG officers had asked the two females why they had come here to which the Applicant had replied 'To have a glass of Coke'. PC 5754U had noticed a flyer in one of the females' hands which he had asked to see. It was shown to me and I recall it was like a large postcard, about 9"x 9", with red wording against a black background. I cannot recall exactly what the words said but it was clearly anti-wedding in content and mentioned some sort of 'Zombie' gathering in Soho Square before moving on towards the Royal Wedding itself, although I cannot recall whether the flyer said what might happen thereafter. With the TSG officers unable to devote the time to making arrests and taking prisoners into custody, I arrested the Applicant in order to prevent a breach of the peace. The time of the arrest was 11.30 .
8. Mindful of the occasion and our earlier briefing, I believed the arrest was justified and explained the reasons for the arrest to the Applicant, thus: the intentional, partial concealment of her face; the possession of the anti-wedding literature within the vicinity of the wedding itself; and the need to prevent her from being harmed, should people supportive of the wedding believe that she intended to disrupt the occasion and spoil their day.
9. The latter reason seemed to me to be a real concern and the arrest was, therefore, also in the Applicant's best interests. If she, and those with whom she was meeting up in Soho Square, were intent on making an overt public protest regarding the wedding, there was, I believed, a real potential for conflict with pro-wedding supporters leading to breaches of the peace, affray and public order offences.
10. I have been asked whether the Applicant was arrested simply because she held views that were unpopular on that particular day to which my answer is no. To do so would clearly be wrong and I would not do it. Given that the crowds that day were overwhelmingly supportive of the wedding and intent on enjoying the day, while those opposed to it were in a minority, I believed that by protesting in a manner likely to antagonise those who had come to see the wedding, the Applicant and her associates would be endangering themselves."
The Charing Cross claimants
"Bronze 14.1 (Superintendent Morgan) was asked to assign units to identify these persons of interest and find out their intentions and if any criminal offences had been or were suspected of being committed .
Bx14.1 assigned a TSG unit to go to the location and investigate. The issue here was the intentions of those at Charing Cross Station. The area was heavily populated with supporters of the Royal Wedding. The group were suspected of being anti-royal wedding and their reasons for going to the location were apparently to cause conflict with those already there. Their actions and intentions had not been previously communicated to the police. They had not engaged with us beforehand. Therefore the only information that we could go on was that their actions could be direct (i.e. confrontation or causing damage) and this could involve an attack on the royal party or those close by. I believe that had they been allowed to continue, they would have come into conflict with others, engaged in public order offences (such as affray or threatening behaviour) or thrown articles at the royal party. One of my reasons for believing this is that I was aware that leaflets had circulated on the internet and elsewhere encouraging anti-monarchy groups to throw maggots at the royal procession."
" this incident/incidents took place at a time when a) the Royal Wedding had commenced (i.e. the procession to the Abbey had taken place and the procession back to the Palace was imminent), b) the ceremonial/viewing areas were full with thousands of royal supporters, c) the group in question were anti-royal and had anti-royal placards and were boisterous and, as a result, their presence was likely to provoke some form of reaction from the crowd, d) there was previous (very recent) experience of small autonomous groups causing disorder/ criminality in similar circumstances, e) the fact that organisers had not contacted police in advance for any march as required by the Public Order Act and f) this was the last opportunity to act to prevent a imminent breach of the peace prior to this group entering an area heavily congested with royal supporters (i.e. Trafalgar Square which was full owing to a large TV screen in the square) ."
"9. At 11.25hrs I have recorded in my log information from Chief Inspector Woolford which was as follows: 'CONTAIN. 10 persons present. They identify themselves as anti-royalist. One has climbing helmet. Placards in support of this. Other persons in vicinity with climbing equipment.'
10. I recall there had been recent radio traffic which had referred to a group of about three persons who had been seen with climbing equipment in the Covent Garden area. It was believed that there might be a link between these two groups.
11. At 11.30hrs I have recorded that I briefed my sergeants on the information I had received so that they could brief their teams, 'PREP FOR ARRESTS'. It had been decided that this group should be arrested because of the threat of a breach of the peace which they posed. The breach of the peace which I foresaw would occur if this group continued into Trafalgar Square (which was very close by and was already very busy with people who had come to see and celebrate the Royal Wedding) was that fights would break out between this group and the far larger group of Royal Wedding supporters. In my view, fights were very likely if we did nothing. This group had placards and I think their presence in Trafalgar Square if they had got there would have drawn a hostile reaction from the very large pro-royalist crowds in Trafalgar Square which would have led to violence very quickly. I was satisfied that there was a reasonable and proper basis to make these arrests in order to prevent a breach of the peace which I foresaw developing in Trafalgar Square if this group went there."
" I was told by my unit inspector Mr Bethel that our unit was to put in a cordon around this group as it was believed they were going to cause a breach of the peace and by putting in the cordon this would be prevented. The cordon was put in without incident. I then was informed by Mr Bethel that [the] ten people in the cordon would be getting arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace. Mr Bethel added that one of the group had on him a climbing hat and it was strongly believed that there was about to be an attempt to mount a climbing protest at the scene of the celebrations surrounding the Royal Wedding and equally they had stated they were anti Royalists and were bearing a placard saying 'RAIDERS fight for DEMOCRACY'. It was believed that for [their] own safety they would need to be arrested as a very Royalist crowd would be likely to turn on this group who had openly said they were going into the celebrating crowd to deliver their anti-Royalist message. I also felt it was highly likely other climbing gear had been concealed nearby to aid a climbing protest. I relayed this information to officers on my team and @ 1138am the arrests were made by officers in my unit."
"At about 1120 hours we were asked to assist BTP officers at Charing Cross station as they had a group of protesters stopped, believing they were in London to disrupt the royal wedding. I was with the rest of the police serial when Inspector Bethel told us we were to form a containment around the protesters to prevent a breach of the peace. I and my colleagues formed the containment. I was then advised by PS Tame that each of the protesters was to be arrested for breach of the peace as they had admitted to be anti royalists and believed to be in London to disrupt the royal wedding."
PC MacSweeney informed the claimant that she was being arrested "for breach of the peace as it believed that you have come to London to disrupt the royal wedding and cause a disturbance. This is necessary to prevent a breach of the peace occurring and to keep the safety of other members of the public and yourself."
"We were informed BTP had called for urgent assistance. Upon arrival on the concourse at the front of the train station I could see approximately ten youths both males and females surrounded by BTP There were also quite a few members of the public milling around. We were advised by our supervisors to surround the group who had been identified as a risk group and to bubble them. I and the rest of the PSU did this and took over from BTP in order to prevent a breach of the peace and so more information as to what had happened could be ascertained. Whilst stood by the group they were going on about democracy and generally talking between themselves. After some time maybe five minutes I was informed by a supervisor that the group were to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace as apparently the group had admitted to being anti-royalist had come with placards to protest and had climbing equipment with them. This was circulated amongst officers and as a group they were then arrested."
PC Mills informed the claimant that the grounds of the arrest were "to prevent a breach of the peace as you have been identified as part of a group who admitted to being anti-royalist and who have placards and banners to protest in your possession as a group and have climbing equipment with you . Your arrest is necessary to prevent harm to yourself as it is feared other people will take offence to your protest due to the nature of the day and to prevent damage to property".
"On arrival we were given instructions to contain a group of approximately ten persons. I was then informed that the group had been using a loud hailer making anti royal comments carrying placards. Due to the nature of the day (royal wedding) and the number of royal supporters in the area, I believed that if allowed there would be a reaction from the pro royalists and possibly cause injury to those detained. I therefore approached [the ninth claimant] and said to him it has been alleged that you have been in possession of climbing gear and that you have been shouting anti royalist statements. Due to the numbers of pro royal persons here I believe that there may be trouble and in order to prevent a breach of the peace I am arresting you for that ."
"On arrival we were updated that a group of males and females had been detained for purposes of search and believed to be Anti-Royalist protesters. On instruction by Insp Bethel I along with the rest of the serial contained the group . At approximately 1138 hours I was informed that the group had been identified as being anti-royalists and in possession of climbing equipment and were all to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace At 1138 I took [the tenth claimant] to one side and said 'You have been positively identified as anti-royalist demonstrators and some of your group are in possession of climbing equipment. Because of this I suspect you may be planning a visible protest to the Royal Wedding and to prevent this and damage to property I am arresting you to prevent a breach of the peace'."
"Upon arrival I saw a group of people (10-12) both males and females standing around them were police officers. We were told to contain this group to prevent a breach of the peace as it had been identified that this group were anti royalists and were here to protest against the wedding. I was also told that they had a climbing helmet between them. I was also made aware that they had banners and placards. At this time I believed that if this group were allowed to go and protest against the royal family then a breach of the peace would occur due to the thousands of people in central London celebrating the royal wedding. I was then informed that this group were to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. At 1138 hours I took hold of [the eleventh claimant] and said 'I am arresting you to prevent a breach of the peace as I believe you are here to disrupt the royal wedding which would cause a breach of the peace ."
"At approximately 1110 hours I was made aware of British Transport Police requiring urgent assistance as they had contained a group identified as verbal Anti Royalists seen to be in possession of signs of protesting nature and to make verbal comments against the royal family. The group were also identified as being in possession of a megaphone and climbing equipment on arrival Implemented a cordon to prevent a breach of the peace and took over British Transport Police officers. I was informed that the group were to be arrested for breach of the peace. At approximately 1138 hrs I approached [the twelfth claimant]. I said 'I am arresting you for a breach of the peace as you have been identified as making verbal comments against the royal family and in possession of signs of a protesting nature and in possession of rope climbing equipment'. [The claimant] immediately began to resist arrest ."
"At 11.25 we arrived as a serial at Charing Cross . I was informed by PS Bowman that the group had expressed their anti-royalist beliefs and their intention to walk through London carrying placards with anti-royalist slogans and shouting anti-royalist messages. The placards said 'Dawn raiders right for democracy'. I was also instructed by PS Bowman that the group were to be arrested for Breach of the Peace. As soon as my colleague stepped forward some members of the group which was approximately 10 in number began to surge towards the outside of the line of police officers. I saw [the thirteenth claimant] move towards one of the group . I took hold of his left arm and said 'I am arresting you to prevent a breach of the peace under the common law act. This is because the placards the group have in their possession as well as the loud hailer and the intentions expressed by the group. This is necessary to not only prevent any harm coming to the group or members of the public in the immediate circumstances that are in a fervently royal area and so I fear that you could be at immediate risk of physical injury as could other members of the public. Also the group you are in have in their possession climbing equipment. You are also heading in the direction of Buckingham Palace and that your intention is to cause problems there'."
"On our arrival at about 1125 hrs we debussed and moved as a serial to the train station. At the location I could see a group of ten people mostly young males IC1s being held at the location by another police serial My front line supervisors were briefed by Insp Bethel . On conclusion of this briefing my carrier was briefed by PS Bowman . We were instructed to emplace a Breach of the Peace cordon around the group. The briefing I received was that this group had come from the concourse in possession of anti-royalist placards and shouting anti royalist comments. Some were in possession of climbing helmets and bags (believed climbing equipment). This reiterated earlier radio traffic stating males (IC1) had been seen in the Covent Gdn area with helmets and blv'd climbing equipment. (Earlier protests leading up to the wedding had resulted in protest at height. Being notoriously difficult to police.) The briefing also stated that it was believed other potential climbing eqpt may be secreted in the locality. At 1138 I approached [the fourteenth claimant]. I said to him 'Can I have a word please mate'. The male replied 'am I getting arrested?' I said 'you will be soon to prevent a breach of the peace (BOP)'. With that the male dropped to the floor in a controlled manner. This mirrored the actions of others within the group ."
"At about 1125 we attended to Charing Cross Rail Station due to British Transport Police requesting urgent assistance. Information received was that there were a group of males and females at the location acting in a disorderly fashion. Upon arrival at the location I could see a group of nine individuals standing within a group . A number of the individuals within the group admitted that they were anti-Royalist and told police they were going onto meet further people. Owing to the fact that they were shouting 'this is what democracy looks like' we contained the group to prevent them from leaving the location. It was a possibility that the group would try to join a larger group. I had an honest held belief that the group would cause a breach of the peace and that they may have discarded or concealed items used to demonstrate. In addition to this, the group had specifically attended to London on the day of the Royal Wedding and admitted they were collectively anti-Royalist/Monarchy. On direction and instruction of PS Bowman we remained at the location. At 1138 hours we as a unit began to arrest individuals from the group for the offence of breach of the peace . At 1138 hours I fully arrested and cautioned [the fifteenth claimant] for the offence of breach of the peace ."
The M claim
"5. Due to the recent student protests in London in the previous months and the disorder and criminality which had taken place in and around those protests and the fact that the royal wedding was due to take place that day, I stopped this male and spoke to him. I asked him 'Why have you got a megaphone?' He said 'I want to express my opinion and Chief Justice Holland has ruled that I can do this' [this has been identified as a reference to an observation of Holland J in Huntingdon Life Sciences Group v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty  EWHC 522 (QB)]. The Claimant became very serious and his voice was trembling. His behaviour also seemed very defensive as if he had something to hide and this raised my suspicions. He instantly justified his actions which seemed defensive. He seemed older to me than 16 years old. It was his megaphone that first drew my eye to him but it was what was in the bag that was of concern to me. There was also a TV cameraman on the opposite side of the road filming us.
6. I therefore searched the Claimant under Section 1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ('PACE') for items to be used in criminal damage owing to his manner, his nervousness with police and what we knew from recent events, especially the student protests which had spilled into the West End as well as the fact that he was carrying a megaphone. The megaphone indicated that he intended to protest but I was concerned that he might be planning more than this and his shoulder bag or rucksack which appeared to be full was of concern to me. I wanted to know what was in it. I feared that it could contain rocks or spray paint or other items which have been used for causing criminal damage at, or around, recent protests.
7. I was aware that there was a Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 authority for searches in place but because I was looking for items connected with criminal damage I thought it was more appropriate to use the power of search under Section 1 PACE."
"4. It was the megaphone which first caught my attention but it was the rucksack that was of concern to me and which we needed to search. I suspected that we could find items to cause criminal damage in it such as paint sprays or rocks to be thrown."
As to the search itself, he refers to the camera and pens among other items. He describes the pens as large marker pens, 8 inches long, one black and the other red, which could only be for signs or artwork or, as he thought, graffiti. He also recalls that in the bag were a black woolly hat and a black scarf. The statement continues:
"8. I explained to the youth that because of what we had found, he was being placed under arrest on suspicion of going equipped to commit criminal damage (i.e. the offence under Section 3 Criminal Damage Act 1971). The time was 0950 hours. My reasons for suspecting this offence and making this arrest were the size of the pens, the image of graffiti on his camera and his demeanour which appeared unduly nervous and defensive which suggested to me he had something to hide. I thought that unless he was arrested he would use the marker pens for graffiti and this was supported by the fact that he even had a photograph of such graffiti on his camera. Although there is power to seize relevant items under Section 1(6) PACE, this is as evidence of an offence. It would be rare to seize relevant evidence and not make an arrest for the offence to which the items related. Therefore it was not appropriate to confiscate the pens. This was especially so in this case. Without the arrest, the offence would not be prevented because the Claimant 'M' could simply purchase new marker pens and carry out what I thought was his intention to scrawl graffiti slogans. The shops were open for him to buy new pens.
9. The arrest of the youth met the necessity criteria under Section 24(5) PACE. He had failed to provide his name and address. This is itself one of the necessity grounds for an arrest under Section 24(5)(a) PACE. It is impossible to serve a summons on someone whose identity you don't know. The arrest was also necessary to prevent any damage to property (which was the very nature of the offence itself for which he had been arrested i.e. S.24(5)(c)(iii) PACE) and to allow a prompt and effective investigation of this offence (s.24(5)(e) PACE) by questioning him in a tape recorded interview. Therefore his arrest met 3 of the necessity grounds in Section 24(5) PACE."
"I have informed the detainee that, as they had been arrested for a recordable offence, their fingerprints and a DNA sample will be taken to:
(I) Check to make sure whether or not their fingerprints and DNA profile are already held on any relevant database; and
(II) If their fingerprints and/or DNA profile are not on any relevant database, to ensure that they are added; and
(III) Prove their identity as the person arrested and detained at the police station on a particular occasion;
And that these will be retained and subject to a speculative search to confirm or disprove the person's suspected involvement in a recordable offence by comparison with crime fingerprints and/or DNA.
Also that their photograph will be taken and retained for use in the prevention and detection of crime and offences."
"Insufficient evidence to prove criminal intent to cause damage. DP arrested as two marker pens were recovered from a bag he was carrying. [N]o fresh graffiti in the area. DP interviewed he gave a prepared statement stating he did not plan to use them for criminal damage. The pens were not easily accessible and there is no evidence to suggest they would be used for criminal damage. DP is no trace PNC [Police National Computer] ."
The Pearce claim
The intelligence operation
"26. By now, the intelligence cell had identified a number of premises being used as squats, and I was genuinely concerned that one or more of these squats could be housing individuals with intent to commit criminal acts against the Royal Wedding. However, I was not minded to take action against them without a sound legal basis and Bronze Crime, Detective Chief Superintendent Matthew Horne, was able to satisfy me that substantive criminal offences had been identified at each of the squats and that warrants could legitimately by applied for to enter those premises. The intention was not to stop any individuals or groups from engaging in protest, but to prevent any criminal activity or unlawful disruption of the Royal Wedding."
In similar vein, when commenting on an entry in his log for the previous day, 26 April, Commander Broadhurst stresses (at para 44 of his statement) that "I made it quite clear that I did not want speculative action, but would only endorse police activity where there was a good chance of a Brontide subject being present or where we had a clear legal basis for entering such as at Camberwell ".
The obtaining and execution of the search warrants
"46. I had a genuine fear that there were people in the premises we had identified who would attempt to disrupt the wedding if they could. However, I know that it is extremely difficult to prove a person's intent and that we would not necessarily find material evidence in any of the premises that would give us sufficient to charge them immediately. The likelihood was that most individuals would have to be bailed which, if we entered the premises too early, would mean many of them being released to be free to cause problems on the day of the wedding if that was indeed their intention. It was important, therefore, to time any entries or arrests on these premises so that, as far as possible, individuals could be lawfully detained during the time of the wedding ceremony."
"48. Bronze Crime had fully briefed me on all the squats and informed me that Magistrates had issued warrants for all those premises. From his observations and the research that had been done, there was no evidence linking them to disruption of the wedding, but the only way to find out would be to enter the premises and speak to the individuals inside. Given that criminal offences had been identified at all premises and that we had a lawful basis supported by warrants to enter, I gave authority for the warrants to be executed."
"26. I made the decision to instigate the action against the various premises. This was based on the facts presented to me by the investigating officers, i.e. that they suspected criminal activity at the various premises, and the fact that the premises were being used by people who were likely to be planning or involved in criminal activity on the day of the royal wedding. I made the decision to take the action before the royal wedding, (to bring forward police action), which I believed would have the added benefit of making the royal wedding day less likely to be subject to criminal activity. This I believed was a proportionate step in preventing crime whilst undertaking our other primary responsibility of investigating crime and arresting offenders if crime was committed."
"49. At all premises, the lengthy task of thoroughly searching, investigating and interviewing those present was only now beginning. My initial reaction was that no conspiracy had been uncovered inasmuch as at none of the premises had we found plans, weapons or other paraphernalia that was obviously intended to be used on the day of the wedding to cause disruption or damage. This was an obvious relief to me, but did not mean that some of those present did not have that intent. I now awaited a thorough investigation from Bronze Crime and his team as to what offences had been committed and what the intentions of those individuals present were."
"Flyers for the anti monarchy Soho Square event were found at Camberwell but no conspiracy has been uncovered. I have issued a press release that says the raids were intelligence led, crime operations that were brought forward because of fears about the wedding".
We were referred to an article on the Daily Telegraph website, timed at 5.20 p.m. on 28 April, for the way the matter was presented to the media. The article states: "The Metropolitan Police admitted they had brought the raids forward because they feared those arrested may plan to disrupt the wedding".
The Middleton claim
"On Saturday 26th March 2011, the TUC staged a demonstration through Central London on a pre-planned route in agreement with the Metropolitan Police. Hundreds of thousands of people attended the protest and the vast majority participated peacefully. However, as with the recent student demonstrations in November 2010 and December 2010, there were others who attended the demonstration and caused disorder. The disorder that took place was initially against private business venues and banks. Later in the day, police and state monuments were targeted. Offences that arose were typically criminal damage, aggravated trespass, offences against the public order act and assaults on police. On the day itself, 201 people were arrested. In the following days, the Metropolitan Police formed a post-event investigation called Operation BRONTIDE.
Intelligence provides that Sipson Camp, located at Sipson Village, West Drayton, Middlesex is occupied by activists affiliated to environmental and extreme left wing groups.
Intelligence further provides that paint bombs may have been moved to the Sipson Camp for storage which may be utilized for criminal damage.
Intelligence also provides that individuals who may wish to disrupt the Royal wedding are also resident at the camp."
"11. Accordingly, the justices found that Police Constable Sharp had identified in the written information specific items which may be used and a specific event at which they may be used. The justices decided that it was implicit within the written information that the two matters, namely the items to be used and the event at which they were to be used at, were linked.
12. In her oral information, PC Sharp gave further particulars concerning how the intelligence had been gathered, the reliability of such intelligence and the intended use of the paint bombs. A handwritten note was taken by the legal advisor of the officer's evidence .
13. It is not accepted that the information, taken as a whole (including the oral and written information), only suggested that paint bombs 'may' have been moved to the camp and 'may' be utilised for criminal damage. The justices, taking both the oral evidence and the written information together decided that they had reasonable cause, and not mere suspicion, to believe that at the address which was the subject of the application, namely Sipson's Camp, there were articles intended to be used to commit criminal damage, specifically, paint bombs. The justices would not have granted the search warrant on the basis of the written information alone. It was the written information combined with the additional oral information which meant that the court was satisfied that the test set out section 6 Criminal Damage Act 1971 was satisfied."
"Paint bombs being made and stored, will be used in the run up to the Royal Wedding. Officers obtained this information . Will be used to disrupt and cause criminal damage to buildings . Seek single entry to portacabins or premises, therefore warrant needed."
"Authority is hereby given for any constable, accompanied by such person or persons as are necessary for the purposes of the search, on one occasion only within one month from the date of this warrant to enter, if need be by force, the premises herein and to search them and any persons found therein and if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 has been committed in relation to any articles found on the premises or in the possession of such persons, to seize and detain those articles."
"The officer then asked for my name and other details and I told him that I did not want to give my name. On hearing this Officer 1 started to search my person. He went through my pockets and patted down my clothing. He told me to raise my arms which I did. I was made to stay like this, with my arms raised to my sides throughout the search. At one point I put my arms down as they were getting tired and the officer told me to raise them again. He then took my wallet and started searching through it. He took one of my bank cards out and looked at it. He then said to me 'You know it is illegal to have someone else's bank card on you'. I did not say anything in response to this. I did not have anyone else's bank card in my wallet and I thought the officer was just seeing if he could get me to confirm my name.
The search lasted approximately ten minutes and was pretty thorough .."
"I had in my possession an intelligence folder that contained the imagery of outstanding suspects. I took the folder in case we came across wanted individuals. I did not have any intelligence that indicated that any wanted suspects were at the site. I took the folder to all three sites where the warrants were executed with the intention that if we came across individuals that were wanted that they would have been detained."
"I gave the 'occupier' part of the warrant to a black male with unkempt hair who stated he resided. In respect of the exact timing following our arrival onto the site, I would estimate it was no more than 5-7 minutes. The reason it took that long was that I was rebuffed by several other persons on the site who stated to my request as to whether they were the occupier 'no, we are just visiting'. The male I have described in this statement was the first person to actually say that they resided on the camp."
"4. My recollection is that as I entered the camp other officers ran past me. My recollection is that I spoke to a male. When the male was asked his name, he refused to provide it to me.
5. It was necessary for him to be searched and I have a recollection that he may have shown me his wallet. As far as my standard procedure, I looked through the wallet to make sure that there were no items that he could use to harm himself or others.
6. Whilst looking through the wallet, I recall looking at a bank card in order to obtain a name for the male. A very brief conversation took place in regards to the name detailed in the card and my recollection is that it was along the lines of me saying that it is an offence to possess this card if he was not the person named on it.
7. My understanding is that I had power under the terms of the warrant to execute such a search from a person.
8. My recollection is that the search was unremarkable. It lasted for two to three minutes and then another officer came over to speak to the male I had searched ."
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Freedom of expression and assembly
"32. A demonstration may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. The participants must, however, be able to hold the demonstration without having to fear that they will be subjected to physical violence by their opponents; such a fear would be liable to deter associations or other groups supporting common ideas or interests from openly expressing their opinions on highly controversial issues affecting the community. In a democracy the right to counter-demonstrate cannot extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate.
Genuine, effective freedom of peaceful assembly cannot, therefore, be reduced to a mere duty on the part of the State not to interfere: a purely negative conception would not be compatible with the object and purpose of Article 11. Like Article 8, Article 11 sometimes requires positive measures to be taken, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, if need be.
34. While it is the duty of Contracting States to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully, they cannot guarantee this absolutely and they have a wide discretion in the choice of the means to be used. In this area the obligation entered into under Article 11 of the Convention is an obligation as to measures to be taken and not as to results to be achieved."
"102. The Court recalls that, as part of a protest against a grouse shoot, the first applicant walked in front of an armed member of the shoot, thus physically preventing him from firing. She was arrested and detained for approximately 44 hours prior to being brought before a magistrates' court and then released .
103. The Court has no doubt that the measures taken against Ms Steel, particularly the long periods of detention, amounted to serious interferences with the exercise of her right to freedom of expression. However, it must also have regard to the dangers inherent in the applicant's particular form of protest activity and the risk of disorder arising from the persistent obstruction by the demonstrators of the members of the grouse shoot as they attempted to carry out their lawful pastime.
104. In these circumstances, the Court does not find that the actions of the police in arresting Ms Steel and removing her from the scene of the demonstration were disproportionate.
105. She was then held for approximately 44 hours. From the custody record it would appear that the police considered this necessary to prevent any further breach of the peace and to ensure that she attended before the magistrates.
106. Forty-four hours is undoubtedly a long period of detention in such a case. However, the Court recalls that Ms Steel's behaviour prior to her arrest had created a danger of serious physical injury to herself and others and had formed part of a protest against grouse shooting which risked culminating in disorder and violence. Particularly given the risk of an early resumption by her, if released, of her protest activities against field sports, and the possible consequences of this eventuality, both of which the police were best placed to assess, the Court does not consider that this detention was disproportionate.
108. The second applicant had taken part in a protest against the building of a motorway extension, placing herself in front of machinery in order to impede the engineering works. She was arrested and detained for approximately 17 hours prior to being brought before a magistrates' court, and was subsequently imprisoned for seven days after refusing to agree to be bound over.
109. The Court refers to its reasoning and findings in relation to the first applicant. Although the risk of disorder created by Ms Lush's conduct was, arguably, less serious than that caused by the first applicant, the magistrates nonetheless found that she had acted in a way likely to cause a breach of the peace and the Court sees no reason to doubt this conclusion. Taking into account the interest in maintaining public order and protecting the rights of others, and also the need to maintain the authority of the judiciary, the measures taken against the second applicant were not disproportionate."
"35. As regards the right to freedom of peaceful assembly as guaranteed by Art. 11, the Court reiterates that it comprises negative and positive obligations on the part of the Contracting State.
36. On the one hand, the State is compelled to abstain from interfering with that right, which also extends to a demonstration that may annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. If every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration was to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views.
37. On the other hand, states may be required under Art. 11 to take positive measures in order to protect a lawful demonstration against counter-demonstrations.
46. Therefore, it remains to be examined whether the prohibition was justified to protect the cemetery-goers' right to manifest their religion [under art. 9] .
47. However, the Court notes a number of factors which indicate that the prohibition at issue was disproportionate to the aim pursued. First and foremost, the assembly was in no way directed against the cemetery-goers' beliefs or the manifestation of them. Moreover, the applicant expected only a small number of participants. They envisaged peaceful and silent means of expressing their opinion, namely the carrying of commemorative messages, and had explicitly ruled out the use of chanting or banners. Thus, the intended assembly in itself could not have hurt the feelings of cemetery-goers. Moreover, while the authorities feared that, as in previous years, heated debates might arise, it was not alleged that any incidents of violence had occurred on previous occasions."
Breach of the peace
"We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. It is for this breach of the peace when done in his presence or the reasonable apprehension of it taking place that a constable, or anyone else, may arrest an offender without a warrant."
"62. For the most part, the common law is concerned to punish those who have committed an offence and to deter them and others from doing so in the future. It does not step in beforehand to prevent people from committing offences. The duty to prevent a breach of the peace is therefore exceptional. And, if not kept within proper bounds, it could be a recipe for officious and unjustified intervention in other people's affairs. The common law guards against this danger by insisting that the duty arises only when the police officer apprehends that a breach of the peace is 'imminent' or is 'about to take place' or is 'about to be committed' or will take place 'in the immediate future' . His apprehension 'must relate to the near future' . If he reasonably apprehends that a breach of the peace is likely to occur in the near future, the officer's duty is to take reasonable steps to prevent it."
"67. If he merely thinks that, while a breach of the peace may happen, the chances are that it won't, then he will not regard it as imminent. He will only regard it as imminent if he thinks that it is likely to happen [original emphasis].
69. This does not mean that the officer must be able to say that the breach is going to happen in the next few seconds or next few minutes. That would be an impossible standard to meet, since a police officer will rarely be able to predict just when violence will break out . [In relation to the first two applicants in Steel v United Kingdom:] In neither case could the police officers have predicted exactly when the violent reaction provoked by the protests would occur. But I have no doubt that the police officers were entitled to take preventive action on the view that it was likely that a breach of the peace would occur some time in the near future, if the protesters persisted ."
"67. The police officers' view of the matter will depend on the information he has and on his assessment of that information . But, today, officers on the ground can be supplied by radio with information about what lies round the corner or what people are doing a few miles down the road. Armed with such information, they may have good reason to anticipate that people in front of them are intending to take part in a breach of the peace, or are likely to become involved in one, a short time later or a short car ride away. Intervention to prevent that breach of the peace may therefore be justified. A fortiori, a senior officer at the centre of a police operation, receiving reports from his officers on the ground, plus intelligence and advice on how to interpret the data, may have good reason to appreciate that a breach of the peace is 'imminent' or 'about to happen', even though that would not be apparent to officers lacking these advantages ."
In saying that, Lord Rodger no doubt also had in mind O'Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary  AC 286, where the entitlement of officers to rely on information from other officers is made clear.
"95. In the first class, which one might regard as the most direct and into which the respondents claim the present case falls, the person who is arrested, detained or otherwise prevented from continuing with his proposed course of action is himself committing or about to commit a breach of the peace .
96. The second category can pose difficult problems of judgment for police officers in balancing the need to prevent breaches of the peace and not to obstruct the actions of people acting lawfully. This class concerns people whose acts are lawful and peaceful in themselves but are likely to provoke others into committing a breach of the peace. It may be represented in modern law by Albert v Lavin  AC 546 . The actions of the appellant, Mr Albert, who insisted on jumping a bus queue, gave rise to a hostile reaction from other travellers. The magistrates found that the respondent police officer had reasonable grounds for believing a breach of the peace to be imminent unless he obstructed him from boarding the bus out of turn. This justified him in attempting to restrain the appellant.
98. In the third class of case the actions are not necessarily provocative per se, but a counter-demonstration is arranged, of such a nature that the confluence of demonstrations is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. This situation not infrequently arises in the context of parades in Northern Ireland. The authorities may find themselves with an invidious choice to make in order to prevent a breach of the peace, whether their preventive efforts should be directed to those taking part in the original demonstration or to the counter-demonstrators .
99. There are undoubtedly many variants of the facts of different cases which would make them difficult to fit into any of these categories, if such classification were required .
100. It is fortunately not necessary to attempt to reconcile these and other examples to be found in the reports, though they serve to indicate the richness of the tapestry of life and the infinite variety of the modes in which people will attempt to exercise freedom of expression. What is common to all is the necessity of finding that a breach of the peace was either taking place or was about to happen or, to use the convenient term adopted throughout this appeal, was imminent ."
THE ALLEGATION OF AN UNLAWFUL POLICY OR PRACTICE
"16. The key distinction is between peaceful protest and peaceful assembly, conducted with respect for the rights of others on the one hand and on the other hand activities intended to deliberately disrupt, frustrate and damage the enjoyment and activities of others by offences of criminal damage, assault, threatening or abusive words or behaviour, obstruction of the highway or other offences and designed to seize public and media attention by the damage and disorder caused and regardless as to whether this is in support of a protest cause or not. This was the distinction between peaceful protest and criminality (whether cloaked as a form of protest or not) which AC Owens and Commander Jones referred to in the press interviews they gave and which I had in my mind as Gold Commander.
53. Following the disorder in November and December 2010 and at the TUC March in 2011, there was a huge amount of pressure on me as the Gold Commander to ensure that the Royal Wedding was not disrupted by violent behaviour or disorder. Despite that pressure, there was no policy to prevent protest on the day of the Royal Wedding. Indeed, we worked with a number of individuals and groups such as MAC, EDL and Mr Gulamhussein, who all wanted to protest at the time of the ceremony outside Westminster Abbey. MAC and EDL withdrew their applications, having spoken to us at length, and Mr Gulamhussein moved his protest outside the security footprint. Other protests were allowed to go ahead in Central London, such as the ones organised at Red Lion Square and Soho Square. The timing of the raids on the various premises described herein were not intended to stop protest, but were taken as a result of my very real fears that some people within those premises were intent on criminally disrupting the wedding."
"There was no policy to prevent protest on the day of the Royal Wedding. Our objectives in the police command team the Gold Strategy, the Silver Plan, my own Bronze 14 area of responsibility were principally to prevent crime and disorder breaking out which had disfigured protest events in the autumn of 2010 and the spring of 2011. Where peaceful and lawful protest occurred then we did not intervene, but monitored the situation and facilitated this where possible."
THE HICKS CLAIM
Ground 1: unlawful policy or practice
Ground 2: no imminent breach of the peace
The Starbucks claimants
The second zombie claimant
The Charing Cross claimants
Ground 3: arrest was disproportionate
Ground 4: fettering of discretion
"Many other examples may be cited of cases where the action of the constable who exercises a statutory power of arrest or of search is a member of a team of police officers, or where his action is the culmination of various steps taken by other police officers, perhaps over a long period and perhaps also involving officers from other police forces. For obvious practical reasons police officers must be able to rely upon each other in taking decisions as to whom to arrest or where to search and in what circumstances. The statutory power does not require that the constable who exercises the power must be in possession of all the information which has led to a decision, perhaps taken by others, that the time has come for it to be exercised. What it does require is that the constable who exercises the power must first have equipped himself with sufficient information so that he has reasonable cause to suspect before the power is exercised."
Ground 5: breach of Convention rights
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ."
"The position is the same in the present case. Applying the same numbered points as above, (i) the applicants were accused of breaching the peace, which is to be classified as a criminal offence for Convention purposes. (ii) Breach of the peace is sufficiently well defined to comply with Convention requirements of lawfulness. The judgment in the present case confirmed the pre-existing law that provocative disorderly behaviour likely to have the natural consequence of causing violence constituted a breach of the peace, even if the violence would be to the person concerned . (iii) The police could reasonably fear that the applicants' behaviour might provoke others to violence, and there was no evidence to suggest that the deprivations of liberty were arbitrary . The initial detention was to prevent the applicants from committing an offence; as regards the period of detention after the fishing match on the following day or throughout the period subsequent to the initial fishing competition if there was none on the second day the applicants were clearly being detained for the purpose of bringing them before the competent legal authority on suspicion of having committed an 'offence'.
It follows that the applicants' initial arrest and detention were compatible with Article 5§1(c) of the Convention ."
" In particular, it had not been shown that the handcuffing had affected the applicant physically or mentally or had been aimed at humiliating him. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that there are sufficient elements enabling it to find that the treatment complained of entailed such adverse effects on his physical or moral integrity as to constitute an interference with the applicant's right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention."
Certain of the Hicks claimants contend that the circumstances in which they were handcuffed were particularly humiliating and degrading or that they suffered physical pain and suffering which rendered their cases distinguishable from that of the applicant in Raninen. The point is advanced in particular in relation to three of the Starbucks claimants (claimants 2, 3 and 5) and one of the Charing Cross claimants (claimant 7), who complain variously of pain and marks caused by tight handcuffs, of the humiliation of having to use a toilet while handcuffed and in the presence of a police officer, of the humiliation resulting from the wearing of handcuffs in the presence of journalists, and of having to stand in the sun for a lengthy period while handcuffed.
Articles 10 and 11
THE M CLAIM
Ground 1: unlawful policy or practice
Ground 2: unlawful stop and search
Ground 3: unlawful arrest
Ground 4: unlawful taking of DNA, fingerprints and photographs
Ground 5: unlawful retention of DNA, fingerprints and photographs
"46. In these circumstances, in my view it is appropriate to grant a declaration that the present ACPO guidelines (amended as they have been to exclude children under the age of 10) are unlawful because they are incompatible with the ECHR. It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further. Section 8(1) of the HRA gives the court a wide discretion to grant such relief or remedy within its powers as it considers just and appropriate. Since Parliament is already seised of the matter, it is neither just nor appropriate to make an order requiring a change in the legislative scheme within a specific period.
47. The legislature must be allowed a reasonable time in which to produce a lawful solution to a difficult problem.
48. Nor would it be just or appropriate to make an order for the destruction of data which it is possible (to put it no higher) it will be lawful to retain under the scheme which Parliament produces.
49. In these circumstances, the only order that should be made is to grant a declaration that the present ACPO guidelines (as amended) are unlawful. If Parliament does not produce revised guidelines within a reasonable time, then the claimants will be able to seek judicial review of the continuing retention of their data under the unlawful ACPO guidelines and their claims will be likely to succeed."
THE PEARCE CLAIM
Ground 1(a): ulterior motive
"16.(8) A search under a warrant may only be a search to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued."
By s.15(1), an entry on or search of premises under a warrant is unlawful unless it complies with s.15 and s.16. Compliance with s.16(8) is therefore a necessary condition of a valid search.
"My Lords, I would make two observations in respect of these submissions. The first is that if the true construction of section 93H be the one which I have suggested, then I consider that in the great majority of cases the circuit judge will not be faced with a situation where it appears that the police are actuated both by the purpose of investigating the proceeds of criminal conduct and by the purpose of investigating the commission of an offence, and that the judge will only have to consider whether he is satisfied that the purpose of the application is to investigate the proceeds of criminal conduct. Secondly, in my opinion the nature of the dominant purpose test is well stated in Wade & Forsyth on Administrative Law, 7th ed. (1994), p.436:
'Sometimes an act may serve two or more purposes, some authorised and some not, and it may be a question whether the public authority may kill two birds with one stone. The general rule is that its action will be lawful provided that the permitted purpose is the true and dominant purpose behind the act, even though some secondary or incidental advantage may be gained for some purpose which is outside the authority's powers. There is a clear distinction between this situation and its opposite, where the permitted purpose is a mere pretext and a dominant purpose is ultra vires.'
In those cases where consideration may have to be given to the distinction between the two purposes, or where it may appear that the two purposes may coexist (an example being where the police wish to investigate a case of living on the earnings of a prostitute), I think that there will be little practical difference between applying the test adopted by Simon Brown LJ [in the Divisional Court] and the test propounded by Mr Temple [counsel for the Crown], but if a difference were to result, I consider it to be clear that the dominant purpose test is the appropriate one to apply.
Accordingly I consider that if the true and dominant purpose of an application under section 93H is to enable an investigation to be made into the proceeds of criminal conduct, the application should be granted even if an incidental consequence may be that the police will obtain evidence relating to the commission of an offence. But if the true and dominant purpose of the application is to carry out an investigation whether a criminal offence has been committed and to obtain evidence to bring a prosecution, the application should be refused."
Ground 1(b): search for material outside warrants
"19.(1) The powers conferred by subsections (2), (3) and (4) below are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on any premises.
(2) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing -
(a) that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.
(3) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing
(a) that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and
(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.
(5) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to any power otherwise conferred."
"16.(10) A warrant shall be returned to the appropriate person mentioned in subsection (10A) below
(a) when it has been executed;
(10A) The appropriate person is
(a) if the warrant was issued by a justice of the peace, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when he issued the warrant;
(b) if it was issued by a judge, the appropriate officer of the court from which he issued it."
Grounds 2 and 3: breach of Convention rights
THE MIDDLETON CLAIM
Ground 1: warrant obtained on basis of misleading information etc.
Ground 2: magistrates erred in issuing warrant
"6.(1) If it is made to appear by information on oath before a justice of the peace that there is reasonable cause to believe that any person has in his custody or under his control or on his premises anything which there is reasonable cause to believe has been or is intended for use without lawful excuse
(a) to destroy or damage property belonging to another
the justice may grant a warrant authorising any constable to search for and seize the thing."
"It is necessary that the persons who are in the premises searched can ascertain from the warrant itself, when it is presented to them, to what material it relates. It is as necessary that they can see, so far as practicable, what is the scope of the warrant as can the police officers effecting the search. Both the statute and principle require the warrant to be a self-contained statement of the articles for which the search is authorised ."
Ground 3: breach of ss.15 and 16 of PACE
"Where the occupier of premises which are to be entered and searched is present at the time when a constable seeks to execute a warrant to enter and search them, the constable
(b) shall produce the warrant to him ."
Attention is also drawn to para 6.8 of Code B of the PACE Codes of Practice, which provides that if the occupier is present, copies of the warrant shall if practicable be given to him before the search begins, unless the officer in charge of the search reasonably believes that this would frustrate the object of the search or endanger officers or other people.
Ground 4: breach of Convention rights