GLD Vacancies

St Paul's protest camp case kicks off in High Court

The High Court will today begin hearing the City of London Corporation’s case for removing tents and equipment at the protest camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral.

The Corporation, the highways authority for the Square Mile, is making a range of claims for possession and injunctions.

The protest campsite, which has been in place for two months, occupies two distinct categories of land – highway vested in the Corporation of London and open land vested in the Cathedral.

Tammy Samede, the first defendant and a representative of those taking part in the protest camp under the banner Occupy London Stock Exchange, is defending the case on the basis that there is lawful authority/excuse for the protest camp on the highway as a manifestation of the right to protest enshrined in the common law and in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Corporation insisted in its skeleton argument that there was no arguable right to occupy, control or take possession of highway land from it as the highway authority.

It also argued – amongst other things – that planning permission was required and had not been granted, and the campsite was in direct breach of a number of relevant planning policies.

The Corporation said that in planning terms, the use of the public highway and certain areas of land for a semi-permanent protest camp was unacceptable and that it was “expedient and necessary” in the public interest to prevent such use.

The CoL insisted that the limited interference with the defendants’ Article 10 and 11 rights that removal of the tents would entail was justified and proportionate.

The skeleton argument said the Corporation would in that respect be relying on the following:

  • The Corporation had given the Article 10 and 11 rights great weight in its consideration. “It delayed taking action while a negotiated settlement was sought. When reasonable offers were rejected it concluded that it was necessary to interfere with the A10/11 rights to the extent sought through these orders after the most careful deliberation and after having examined whether any alternative avenues are reasonably open to it”
  • There was “unreasonable obstruction”, which was a public nuisance
  • Despite the efforts of various working groups at the protest camp, it had significant continuing implications for the rights and freedoms of others which would continue unless the camp is removed
  • There had been a negative impact on the worshippers, clergy and staff at the Cathedral and services there. “The CoL cannot lawfully tolerate a position in which the Article 9 rights of worshippers at St Paul’s are seriously detrimentally impacted on an ongoing basis”
  • The protest camp was an actionable nuisance against the Cathedral. “The general operations and activities of the Cathedral are severely impacted and the rights and freedoms of staff and clergy to go about their day to day business without unacceptable behaviour towards them is seriously impaired”
  • It was “inconceivable” that planning permission would be granted for a semi-permanent protest camp at the location. “The existence of a protest camp here is inconsistent not only with highway rights but also with the character, nature and lawful users in this location”
  • Whilst some businesses may not have suffered significant impacts, the overall position communicated to the Corporation was of substantial impacts on trade and the trading environment
  • The protest camp had acted as a magnet for people who have caused significant disorder and a substantial increase in crime in this area. “The CoL accepts that there have been elements of passer by induced disorder but there is very strong evidence including in the Police Community Impact Assessment Report….of tension and violence within the camp community and from some at the camp against outsiders”
  • A major camp such as this “brings with it inevitable pressures which would not otherwise arise in terms of sanitary conditions, disposal of waste and cleansing issues”. Despite the efforts of many of the protestors, this had deteriorated over time. The evidence demonstrated the unsuitability of the location for a protest camp. “Urination and defecation are significant problems despite the portaloos”
  • The CoL was concerned about the well being of those suffering from mental illness, alcoholism and/or drug addiction who have been attracted to the camp
  • It appeared that: a large number of witnesses and visitors were day visitors only; the number of people present was significantly lower than at the outset; and the number of people present in the evenings was far lower than the number of tents
  • The claim that the protest camp was willing to negotiate on the size of the camp was "not borne out by the history”. Reasonable offers by the CoL havd been “dismissed without counter offers being made”.

The CoL added that “despite extensive searches”, it had not been able to find any authority in any ECHR case law that the right to protest extended to erecting a semi-permanent protest camp on the highway.

The Corporation insisted that it did not seek to prevent protest in the location, but only sought to remove the tents. “The right to protest is not in doubt and has been the starting point for the CoL’s consideration of this case from the outset,” it argued.

“If the orders sought are granted, then once the tents are removed, a peaceful protest which does not obstruct the highway, does not take possession of it from the Corporation and which is in other respects reasonable will be lawful as would public assemblies at the steps of St Paul’s (with St Paul’s consent) – such as the sermon on the steps.”

The hearing before Mr Justice Lindblom is expected to last three to four days.

Philip Hoult