The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, is being sued over the arrest of the chief executive of Britain’s leading republican movement on the day of the king’s coronation, in what is being viewed as a first test case of new protest laws.
Graham Smith, who was detained on 6 May for 14 hours, is seeking a judicial review of the lawfulness of his arrest as well as damages and an admission of fault from Scotland Yard, according to legal papers seen by the Guardian.
The case is said by Smith’s lawyers to be the first time that a court has had the chance to consider the “correct approach” to the exercise of powers given to the police days before the coronation under which they are able to arrest those suspected of “going equipped to lock on”.
The legal challenge by Smith follows an outcry at what freedom of speech campaigners criticised at the time as the heavy-handed policing of the coronation, which led to just a handful of charges despite a blizzard of police activity.
There were 64 arrests on the day, of which half led to no further action being taken, including in relation to Smith, whose detention with a group of five other republican campaigners Rowley has since conceded was “unfortunate”.
In a 39-page statement of facts, lawyers for the chief executive of Republic, a 40-year-old campaign group, say the day of the king’s crowning had been considered by Smith as a “once in a generation” opportunity to voice political views about the monarchy and he had made significant efforts to ensure there would be no disruption to plans for a protest.
Discussions were opened up with police four months before the event. Information provided to officers included the location of the demonstration, the estimated numbers of people expected and details of what materials, such as banners or speakers, would be brought to Trafalgar Square and elsewhere by anti-monarchist protesters.
On 26 April, Smith provided detail of the text that would be on the banners his group intended to take to the coronation following a request for information from a police constable liaising with him.
Despite meetings, phone conversations, text messages, emails and the provision of written assurances from Scotland Yard in relation to the protest, it is claimed the Met went on to breach Smith’s right to expect to be able to demonstrate at the event in “accordance with plans” approved by officers.
As Smith and five others helped move banners from a hotel down to the protest site at about 6am on 6 May they were approached by a Met officer, believed to be a bronze commander responsible for organising on the ground, who asked them about their intentions.
Smith explained about the past conversations and assurances but they were interrupted again when the group went on to help unload a van full of banners. The van was searched by officers; Smith and his colleagues were separated and detained; attempts by Smith to phone the police constable with whom he had been liaising were allegedly “physically prevented”.
Smith was arrested under the new offence of going equipped to lock on in relation to extendable luggage straps found in the van that the group said were going to be used to help keep the placards together on trolleys as they were transported.
It is claimed by Smith’s lawyers that the arresting officer did not have any reasonable grounds to suspect he was intending to commit an offence “because of his extensive communication and cooperation with the defendant’s officers in respect of the protest”.
They add of the luggage straps being the justification for the arrest that “if this were the law, an individual who simply cycles to a protest and has a bike lock in their rucksack could be arrested. Further and in any event, the luggage straps that were in the van were adjustable in length and could easily be loosened or cut”.
Smith’s lawyers further claim that there was no need for the arrest as there were alternative means “of avoiding any purported risk of disruption” such as seizing the banners in his possession.
“[Smith] informed the defendant’s officers of the details of where and when the protest would be carried out, how many people would attend the protest, and that Republic would be bringing a large number of placards for use by attendees,” it is claimed.
“The defendant’s officers did not raise any objection to this planned protest and assured him that the defendant would facilitate this planned protest in accordance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights.
“On 6 May 2023, the claimant attended the site of his planned protest with a number of colleagues from Republic. The defendant’s officers did not facilitate the protest as the claimant had been assured they would. Instead, they arrested the claimant and held him in detention for over 14 hours.”
In its formal response, the Met calls for the high court to reject Smith’s request for a judicial review, arguing the threshold for an arrest is a “low one” and the arresting officer had reasonable grounds.
Smith told the Guardian: “The important thing is that we need answers as to where the law stands on the right to protest and there is a matter of natural justice for those of use involved. I for one would certainly like to hear a full-throated apology from the Metropolitan police.”
A Scotland Yard spokesperson said: “We can confirm that a judicial claim has been issued. It would be inappropriate to comment on ongoing proceedings.”
