Thread by @netpol

At Court 5 in the Royal Courts of Justice this morning for the #ExtinctionRebellion judicial review (brought by @GreenJennyJones and others) of the Metropolitan Police's blanket use of section 14 restrictions on protest in London last week

The applicants for judicial review are represented by Netpol Lawyers Group member @BindmansLLP and their barristers are Phillipa Kaufman from @matrixchambers and Jude Bunting from @DoughtyStPublic

Philippa Kaufmann: this is about identifying what the section 14 applied to and whether the exercise of the power was ultra vires and in the way it was used, wholly unpredictable

Phillipa Kaufmann QC is setting out how the Autumn Rebellion comprised a series of different assemblies within a decentralised movement. Those that came after the section 14 order was imposed were immediately criminalised

The Metropolitan Police, however, quite evidently treated the entire Autumn Rebellion as one single public assembly by imposing a blanket ban on any #ExtinctionRebellion protests

The police could theoretically have imposed restrictions to clearly identified *existing* assemblies. But if they wanted to ban assemblies completely, they would have needed to rely on powers other than section 14 of the Public Order Act

Phillipa Kaufmann QC is now reading out a tweet from a senior police officer making it clear an effective ban "bringing the Extinction Rebellion protests to an end" was what the Metropolitan Police were attempting to impose

In case you're wondering, the power police could potentially have used is section 14A (prohibiting trespassory assemblies), which would have required the permission of the Home Secretary.

Public order laws are already way too restrictive, so expect this if the police lose today

In any event, this is why the use of section 14 was ultra vires

We're now onto the history of public order legislation - our "chosen specialist subject" if any of us ever make it onto Mastermind...

Onto section 14: it clearly applies only to a "public place" but the police chose to impose restrictions on the whole of London.

Phillipa Kaufmann QC: the activities within the Autumn Rebellion were at a variety of separate but specific public spaces. Protesters had a shared purpose, but we're not in the same location. It's unclear if section 14 even requires a shared purpose within one single assembly

Although Section 14 does have the power to impose conditions on where an assembly is (or continues to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum numbers, it cannot ban future protests. Only Section 14A can do this

Nevertheless, even Section 14A on trespassory assemblies can only prohibit holding them for up to four days or in an area within "a radius of 5 miles from a specified centre" and again is limited to public spaces. The Met's draconian blanket London-wide ban far exceeded even this

As one of the judges has just said, the maximum duration of an assembly "cannot be set at zero" under Section 14. It must be allowed to go ahead

Phillipa Kaufmann QC: separate from the question of whether it was ultra vires, this leads to the irrationality of the Metropolitan Police decision. It created a situation where individuals were uncertain whether restrictions applied to them or not

It is evident that individuals must know how to avoid breaching conditions applied to "any assemblies linked to #ExtinctionRebellion to end their protests". What does "linked" mean, or indeed "their protest"?

Not only were XR protesters uncertain what they could or couldn't do, but so too were police officers who had been told "the whole thing is banned"

We are now talking about @markthomasinfo's proposed "protest picnic"! A letter was sent by @BhattMurphy seeking clarity and they were told "it is not possible to confirm" if a variety of future protests risked breaching the Section 14 conditions

The police subsequently claimed "lawful protest" by XR was not banned, despite the statements that XR had to "come to an end". So what on earth is a "lawful protest"?

Phillipa Kaufmann QC: "if the defendant (the Metropolitan Police) and its lawyers are unable to understand the conditions, how is a member of the public?"

Barrister for the police is now on his feet: says they dispute the version of events, including the decentralised nature of the Autumn Rebellion. Didn't get the fella's name, sorry

Met police barrister: says it was sufficiently well organised that Extinction Rebellion met with the police and gave a map of the different sites.

He adds as an example that because the London City Airport protest would announced publicly as "setting off from the Westminster site", this shows evidence of central coordination

Police barrister says advance notice to undertake the much criticised action against the London Underground is evidence that the Autumn Rebellion clearly had a London-wide impact

We are now breaking for lunch and unfortunately we can't make it back this afternoon so signing off from Court 5.

If we've misheard anything, we blame the terrible acoustics...

Although the Metropolitan Police will continue making its defence this afternoon, it seems very unlikely the court will make a judgment today on a case with such important human rights implications