The organisers could face £10k fines, and participants could be prosecuted or face fines of £100s.
@metpoliceuk initially told @ReclaimTS organisers they wanted to allow it to happen but late this afternoon reversed their position and said that their "hands were tied" /2
A great team at @BindmansLLP@BlackstoneChbrs@DoughtyStreet and I are working to get urgent hearing before High Court tomorrow to declare Met Police misunderstood their duties under Human Rights Act.
The right to protest is the lifeblood of democracy.
During this deadly pandemic, every aspect of our social lives has been affected, and it is right that a deadly infectious virus will make us protest differently, as it makes us work and socialise differently.
At 3pm today every police force in England was saying protest could never be lawful under Covid regs.
The position now, because of the ruling, is protest can in principle be lawful and it is up to the police to assess the proportionality
The only reason judge didn't make declaration we wanted (that the right to protest has to be part of every decision made by police re protest) is the police conceded the point just before the hearing, contrary to their policy which we had and also their statements to our clients.
Absolutely amazing effort by @ReclaimTS - we are lucky to have such amazing publicly minded women in our society.
Interested to see how the @metpoliceuk police this. In the current lockdown they seem to have been treating protest as essentially banned. I think that is legally wrong. Outdoor socially distanced protest should be permitted under the Covid regulations.
In the circumstances, the @metpoliceuk should confirm publicly that the protest will be permitted. However, if they do, it will be an exception to the policy they seem to have applied through the rest of the lockdown. This shows the problem with the policy.
The police should never be in the position of deciding which causes they prefer to permit to protest. Anyway, watch this space for more on that
First important change - to the face covering regulations.
Basically trying to prevent face covering rules being “exercised so as to prevent a voter who is otherwise entitled to vote… from doing so”. What does that mean, exactly?
I am supporting this campaign to help the Markaz in Golders Green, a Muslim community centre, to change it terms of use from a Christian community building to a general religious one
You may think this should be uncontroversial. I met with the leadership of the Markaz in my chambers a while back (they were lovely) and was shocked to hear about the often racist, sometimes far right, opposition to the centre. I told them I would do whatever I could to help.
The opponents have enlisted someone called Gavin Boby to lead their campaign - he self-describes as "the Mosque Buster" and has this racist logo. He prides himself at blocking planning applications for mosques. gavinboby.com
Also worth mentioning Lady Justice Rose is the fifth Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court in its 11-year history following Justices Phillips, Neuberger, Dyson, Collins (2 of its 4 Presidents have been Jewish). An amazing achievement for a community of 300,000 people
Lady Justice Rose lit the Chanukah candles in the Temple in 2017 at the little annual event I organise which oddly hasn’t made into her official bio!
🕎
Anyway, this has led me to finding this interesting speech given by Lord Neuberger - this para can now proudly be updated supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-17…