Police Tactics at G20 were legal after all
Looks like the police weren’t operating illegally as some on here seemed to think.
It’s not as straightforward as that – it’s a pretty technical decision (as you might expect from the Court of Appeal). I just read it quickly on Bailii and the High Court’s decision was overturned:
(i) not necessarily because the actions were lawful but because the High Court applied the wrong test in considering whether they were reasonable (i.e. from whose perspective were they reasonable?)
(ii) because the actions were lawful because they reasonable.
However, I have to say it made my head hurt a little bit so…Posted 6 years agoZulu-ElevenMember
Konabunnt – the way I read it was:
The court, at first instance found that, although the commanding police officer at the scene on the day felt there was an imminent risk of a breach of the peace which would justify the containment, in the opinion of the court, in hindsight, that breach of the peace was not as imminent has the police thought, which made the containment illegal.
The court of appeal found that this was the incorrenct test, and that the correct test was whether the belief of the police officer in charge on the day that there was an imminent risk of a breach of the peace was a reasonable one for him to come to at the time, based on the information he had at the time – and if this was a reasonable belief, then the containment was lewful.
I note also that they clearly made the point in the judgement that the other, more violent, demonstration up the road was lawfully contained, and that nobody on either side had challenged this.Posted 6 years ago
Z-11: yes – you’ve explained it far better than I did. I read it the same way you did.
For the sake of pedantry, though, I’d point out that afaics as a matter of law, the Court of Appeal (and the High Court for that matter) did not come to a conclusion about the legality of the treatment of the other demonstration precisely because it wasn’t brought into contention.Posted 6 years ago
never mind what the legal system thinks, what do YOU think?
Yossarian – I was too inattentive to wait for the introductory bits of that video to play but the comments seem to suggest that there was undue violence.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the decision specifically says:
From an early stage it has rightly been accepted that judicial review proceedings in this case are appropriate only to the consideration of the strategic decisions. If there are allegations of excessive force or other tortious behaviour against individual, or groups of, police officers, in the course of the operations consequent on those decisions, those allegations must be made in ordinary Queen’s Bench Division actions and their rights or wrongs are not the concern of this case.
yeah I read that bit. Is there any more information on where ‘strategic decisions’ end and decisions made by ‘individual, or groups of, police officers’ begin.
When Bishopsgate was cleared there was a clear decision to use force. I would say that its pretty much impossible to watch the video link and conclude that it was not excessive. Was that a strategic decision or not, only that the little chat between senior coppers at the begining makes it look pretty strategic…Posted 6 years agoircSubscriber
So, if I understand it correctly this means that with the benefit of hindsight, discussion, careful perusing of legal texts and precedents, and looking at all available evidence and arguments put forward by various learned friends and by using all their legal experience and training the High Court judges have agreed that the police commander’s decision made in a fairly short space of time during an ongoing public order situation was correct.
Well done that man!Posted 6 years ago
High Court judges have agreed that the police commander’s decision made in a fairly short space of time during an ongoing public order situation was correct.
what? to clear an entirely peaceful and separate protest by using excessive force?
Hindsight is not a requirement in this case. From the time it happenedPosted 6 years ago
it was clear what was occuring and why.
Sancho my old mate, you might need to check back on the events of that day.
2 main protests, one is Bishopsgate and one at the Royal Exchange
Bishopsgate – friendly and good naturedPosted 6 years ago
Royal Exchange – not so nice, Tomlinson was accidentally killed by accident here. Accidentally.
not really all good natured was it?Posted 6 years ago
bloody hell, is that all you could find in 10 minutes of searching? 😀
Sancho – try here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_G-20_London_summit_protests#Climate_Camp
The climate camp at bishopsgate was not part of the other protests. It was set up with dialogue between the police and organisers. The decision to sweep it away was taken by senior officers, without informing the organisers and the level of aggression shown by police officers engaged in the clearance was utterly disporportionate to the behaviour of demonstrators in the climate cmap throughout the day.
got it now?Posted 6 years agototalshellSubscriber
hang on.. a mob of folk who think they are above the democratic process go round the capital city creating an atmosphere of hate intimidation and violence.. i pay the coppers to maintain law and ORDER by whatever means they deem suitable and legal.. job done i’d say.Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Police Tactics at G20 were legal after all’ is closed to new replies.