A spokesperson for Netpol said,

“A decent lawyer who recognises the importance of things like “no comment” during police interviews can make a huge difference to someone’s chances of defending themselves in court, or suing the police. Our list of solicitors list is an attempt to pool knowledge from across the movement.”

Maintaining this resource is overseen by an experienced panel made up of activists from Green & Black Cross, Legal Defence & Monitoring Group and Newham Monitoring Project. Solicitors are graded from an A (meaning those known to provide quality support) to a D (solicitors that protesters have repeatedly raised complaints about and are best avoided). Currently, we have details of solicitors from around the country but there remain significant gaps.

The solicitors list is based on the pooled experience of many activists over many years. You can help make the list more useful – please send us feedback if you use any of these solicitors. If you can recommend other solicitors, please contact npsl@netpol.org.

Crossing the border.

If you want to come from another country to join us in London in June, you are very welcome! We have had a few questions from people asking if they may have any problems crossing the border to get into the UK. We don’t anticipate any major extra problems for the G8, but here is some information you might find useful.

If you are an EU citizen:

Britain is not in the Schengen zone, so you will get stopped and asked to show your passport or ID at the border. The police have the power to
search you and ask questions.

However, according to experienced legal activists (LDMG), it is very unlikely that you will be refused entry to the UK (unless you are very
high profile). If they think that you are coming for the G8, it is quite possible that you will be searched and asked questions, but then let
through the border.

In theory, the police do have the power to refuse entry to EU citizens in extreme cases, on ‘public policy’ grounds. They can do this if you pose ‘a sufficiently serious threat to fundamental interests in society’. This can be because of serious criminal convictions, but it can also include your conduct or membership of a particular ‘undesirable’ group. For example, this power has been used against high profile public figures, e.g., Dutch fascist MP Geert Wilders. But legal activists say that is unlikely to be used unless you are particularly high profile: for example, if you have a particularly serious criminal record, or if there is a specific warning about you on a European police database.

If you are not an EU citizen:

Rules for visas for non-EU citizens depend a lot on different countries: you need to check with the Home Office website to see what rules apply to
your country. Be aware that it is easier, and fairly common, for the police / immigration officers to refuse entry if you are not a EU citizen.
For example, they may ask you to show that you have money to stay in the UK, that you have a place to stay, etc.

General advice.

The strongest border controls are usually at airports. You are probably more likely to be checked and questioned at an airport than on the channel
tunnel or at a ferry port. Ferry ports usually have the easiest controls, at least if you are coming on foot, on a bike, or in a normal car. If you cross by car on the ferry, it is very common for a guard to just take a quick look at your passport and wave you through without asking questions.

HOWEVER be aware that at Calais and other ferry ports vans, camper vans, minibuses, and lorries are very often checked, as the police are looking
for migrants hiding in larger vehicles. They sometimes use dogs, heat and C02 detectors and other sensing devices to check large vehicles. Also, the Eurolines coaches are very commonly stopped for immigration controls.

It is possible that before the G8 summit there will be extra tight checks at the border. If you do not want to be searched or questioned, it is a
good idea to travel as inconspicuously as possible. Try to look “normal”, and travel in a normal car rather than in a large group of activists on a coach. Again, it is unlikely that coaches will be turned away, but it is likely that you will be searched and asked questions.

Schedule 7.

The other thing you should be aware of is the so-called “Schedule 7″ anti-terrorist law. This gives the police the right to stop and question
anyone at the border, without giving you your normal rights under police questioning. That is, you DO have to answer their questions, and they do
not have to wait for a lawyer to arrive before they question you. They can hold you for up to 9 hours even without suspecting you of any offence.
They can also take cameras, computers, and mobile phones and keep them for up to 7 days to collect information. If you refuse to answer questions,
they may charge you with a criminal offence.

This law is highly controversial, and widely abused by the police: it is supposed to only be used to prevent terrorism, not to gather information
on protests. Some activists have decided to refuse to answer questions, on the grounds that the law has not been applied properly because the
questioning was not really connected to terrorism. So far the police have been reluctant to charge people who have done this, but if you decide to
refuse to answer questions you need to be aware that you are taking a risk.

If you have problems at the border.

If you have any questions, or if you get stopped at the border and need legal advice, you can call the Green & Black Cross legal hotline. The
number is: 00 44 7946 541511

If you do get stuck at the border in France you can also contact our friends at Calais Migrant Solidarity, who can help arrange legal support in France if necessary. Their number is: 00 33 6 45 46 59 86

However, under section 50 of the Police Reform Act the police DO have powers to take your name and address (but not date of birth) IF they reasonably believe you have engaged in anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour (ASB)is defined as doing something likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others.

Section 50 powers are sometimes used by the police as a routine or blanket means of obtaining names and addresses, especially during stop and searches. But if the police do not have a genuine and reasonable belief that the person they are dealing with has been involved with ASB, the use of this power would be unlawful.

If you are told to give your details under ‘section 50′:

• Clarify that they are using s50 Police Reform Act. If possible, record them saying this. In some circumstances the police have subsequently denied using s50 powers, claiming that people gave their details voluntarily.
• Ask them to tell you exactly what they believe you have done that constitutes anti-social behaviour. They must have a reasonable belief that you did something likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’.
• If possible film what they do, or record what they say on your mobile phone.
• It is not enough for the police to say they believe you are ‘going to’ engage in anti-social behaviour. Section 50 powers do not apply to possible future actions – only if a person ‘has been acting, or is acting in an anti-social manner’.

Refusing to give your details under section 50:

• If you refuse to give your name and address you may be arrested, but this is not always the case.  Even though the police may threaten to arrest for not providing details they do not always do so.
• If you are arrested, you may be taken to a police station and charged with an offence under s50. However, in some cases the police have been known to ‘de-arrest’ if a person gives their details after arrest.
• If you are prosecuted, the police will have to provide some evidence to the court that they reasonably believed you had been engaged in anti-social behaviour. If they cannot do this, you should not be convicted.
• If you are convicted you may be fined, but you cannot be imprisoned for breaching section 50.
• Giving a false or inaccurate name and address is also an offence under section 50.

A number of people arrested under s50 have taken civil actions against the police for damages. If you are unlawfully arrested for not giving your details, you may be able to claim compensation. Contact Green & Black Cross or Netpol if you want to explore doing this.  It may help if you have an audio or video record of the incident.

Note: Behaviour ‘likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress’ is a very broad definition, and the courts have allowed the police to extend it to all sorts of behaviour, including (in some circumstances) swearing.

You may be interested in a previous post exploring how the police use section 50 powers.

Powers given to the police to deal with anti-social behaviour are increasingly being used to gather information on participants in political protest.

Section 50 of the Police Reform Act gives police the power to demand personal details, if the officer reasonably believes that the individual has been involved in anti-social behaviour. Over the years the police have interpreted a wide variety of protest activity as ‘anti-social behaviour’ in order to obtain the names and addresses of those taking part. This has included sit-down protests, handing out leaflets and spontaneous demonstrations.

Failure to provide personal details when questioned under s50 is a criminal offence for which an individual may be arrested and prosecuted. It is hardly surprising that most people choose to provide their names and addresses, rather than face arrest, even if they do not believe they have been acting anti-socially. These powers provide an easy mechanism for the police to gather intelligence data.

Netpol observers have reported that the police are using allegations of anti-social behaviour as a blanket means of obtaining protester details, coercing people who decide not to provide that information voluntarily.

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) in their report ‘Adapting to Protest‘ acknowledged the potential for misuse of s50 powers. They stated that: “It is likely that wide-scale use of section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 by the police when dealing with peaceful protesters would be found to be unlawful.” The police should not be using s50 in a blanket way on protest – although this is something they frequently do.

This week the High Court will hear a judicial review brought by a Legal Observer who had been with a group of ukuncut protesters who were held in a kettle outside the offices of the Xstrata mining company in Panton Street in 2011. All those contained – including Legal Observers – had been forced to provide their names and address, often in front of police cameras, before being allowed to leave. They were told they must provide their details or face arrest under s50 Police Reform Act.

In Brighton last week, police made extensive use of s50 against protesters who had gathered to oppose the right-wing March for England. In what appeared to be a pre-determined strategy, individuals stopped and searched or kettled were obliged to give their details, although the police were invariably vague about what ‘anti-social behaviour’ they were believed to have engaged in.

The gathering of personal information by police has a chilling effect on protest and political freedom. The police are known to collect and retain information to build a personal profile of protesters, and to act pre-emptively on the basis of intelligence held. This creates a climate in which people fear that if they take part in any form of protest activity , they will find themselves with a ‘police file’.

There is an extensive list of occasions in which the police have made use of s50 powers in relation to lawful and peaceful protest. These include a ukuncut demonstration in Lewes, Sussex, which consisted of protesters holding a tea-party outside a branch of Boots; a sit-down protest to raise issues of homelessness in Cardiff; a spontaneous march by student protesters in Manchester; a group handing out leaflets at the offices of a company involved in the arms trade; a noise protest outside an immigration detention centre and many, many more.

Any power which allows the police to ‘round up’ people engaged in political protest in order to demand their names and addresses under threat of arrest, is a serious and fundamental threat to civil rights and freedoms. Providing police with the ability to build personal profiles of political demonstrators is a dangerous step to take.

Neither should protest ever be treated as ‘anti-social behaviour’. People invariably engage in protest because of a sense of social responsibility. Protest should be seen as an important and protected right, not as a unwanted societal problem.

Section 50 of the Police Reform Act has no place in the policing of protest. Its use should be opposed and resisted.

Tomorrow we will publish a short piece on your rights and section 50.

While filming a routine stop and search of her boyfriend on the London Underground, Gemma suddenly found herself detained, handcuffed and threatened with arrest.

Act of Terror tells the story of her fight to bring the police to justice and prevent this happening to anyone else, ever again.

Act of Terror from Fat Rat Films on Vimeo.

The Metropolitan Police has complained that activists are not contacting them to discuss plans to protest at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. The police should be reminded that for stationary demonstrations there is no legal requirement that the police be notified beforehand. Furthermore, given the significant number of ‘pre-emptive arrests’ which have taken place during the Royal Wedding and at other events and the suggestion by the police of similar tactics being used again, it may not be surprising that protestors are wary of providing the police with information which could lead to their arrest and detention for exercising their right to free speech.

Police and protestors should all be aware of the following:

· Pre-emptive arrests to prevent a ‘breach of the peace’ where someone is acting lawfully can only be made in exceptional circumstances.

· Only where there is an imminent threat of violence can such action be lawful.

· Loud, even boisterous behaviour, is not a breach of the peace, unless violence is likely to be imminently provoked as a result.

· Even then, action short of arrest which will prevent violence should be considered, particularly if it means some freedom of speech could be preserved.

Policing of protests must be measured and proportionate and give due regard to the rights of those who choose to express dissenting views.

Thatchers death prompted street parties in Brixton and Bristol on Monday night

Netpol has increasing concerns regarding the approach being taken by the Metropolitan police in relation to the policing of protests at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral on Wednesday and the planned party in Trafalgar Square on Saturday. Fears are growing that people organising or planning protest will be placed under surveillance, and that the police will be willing to resort to ‘pre-emptive arrest’.

The announcement made by the Metropolitan Police that they will be monitoring a ‘range of information’ including internet and social media will exacerbate these anxieties and deter protest to at least some extent. Netpol has spoken to a number of people who have told us they are fearful of talking about organising or even attending protest. This form of deterrent policing is insidious and divisive, and undermines fundamental freedoms.

The Met do not have a good track record in dealing with mass protest. An occupation in Trafalgar Square after a TUC rally in March 2011 was kettled by police who used force to make mass arrests ‘to prevent a breach of the peace’ of people who had committed no criminal acts. Student demonstrations in 2010 were also kettled, measures which resulted in young people being held for many hours in difficult and dangerous conditions.

Nor do the Met have a good record in dealing with protest at major public events. The Met carried out a number of pre-emptive arrests of potential protesters in advance of the Royal Wedding; some of whom are continuing to challenge the legality of police actions. They also arrested 182 cyclists on a Critical Mass bike ride for alleged breaches of conditions restricting protest on the night of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. From 182 arrests only nine were prosecuted and a mere five convicted.

It is hoped that the Metropolitan police, on this occasion, show an appropriate respect for protest rights. Margaret Thatcher’s funeral is a public event of political significance. People should have the freedom to express their views and feelings without fear of dawn raids, pre-emptive arrest, or having to spend hours in a police ‘kettle’.

The use of civil injunctions and lawsuits is fast emerging as one of the biggest threats to protest freedom in the UK. Sussex University has obtained an injunction preventing any person from entering or remaining on the campus or buildings for the purpose of protest. At the time of writing students are still waiting to learn whether the injunction will allow the university to take possession of Bramber House, currently the site of a student occupation.

The injunction was brought after police decided not to intervene after protesters broke glass in a door, and set fire to some documents. The university said the protest on 25 March had been arranged without liaison with the university or the local police. Sussex Police told media outlets that despite damage caused to the university buildings a decision was made for officers to step back from the protest and not to use force.

Sussex university has used similar tactics before. They went to the high court in 2010 to bring a student occupation to an end – although students ran a strong campaign against it that ultimately led to the reinstatement of the ‘Sussex Six’. There were allegations then that John Duffy (a registrar who is still involved today) lied in his statement to the high court in support of the injunction.

Sussex is not the only higher educational establishment to have resorted to this type of action. In 2011 Birmingham University took out a similar civil injunction preventing protests in the university for a one-year period. Students have strongly opposed all attempts to use the civil law to prevent them engaging in protest – but the implications of this trend go beyond the student community.

Also this week came the news that Essex council has launched civil action to pursue Dale Farm residents for the £4.3m they claim it costs to evict the travellers last year. Police and bailiffs carried out a huge operation in 2011 to remove travellers from land they owned, but did not have planning permission to live on. Supporters of the Irish traveller community built barricades and ‘locked on’ to try to prevent the forced eviction. Bailiffs were only able to enter of the site after a massive and violent police operation. The community fears that Essex council intends to claim the land owned by the travellers at Dale Farm in lieu of the sum owed. This would be an extremely harsh punishment for resisting their eviction.

Earlier this month, the power giant EDF was forced to withdraw from its attempts to claim £5million in damages from environmental protesters. The civil lawsuit (on top of an ongoing trial for aggravated trespass where the defendants face possible jail terms) would have seen the protestors potentially losing their homes, and remaining in debt to EDF for most, if not all, of their lives.

The group No Dash for Gas described the action as “legal bullying” designed “to shut down protest, chill dissent and prevent effective action in the UK against climate change”. It seems that ‘legal bullying’ has caught on, and is being used to quell resistance and protest on an increasingly large scale.

Last week five of the nine people prosecuted for breaching public order act conditions while on a Critical Mass bike ride in July were convicted.  In this article some of the defendants give their views on the arrests, prosecutions and the police attitude towards the Critical Mass.

On 27th July 2012, the Opening Ceremony of the London Olympics displayed a
host of elements pruned from British history – customary ‘folk’
celebrations, the struggle of the Suffragettes; the invention of the
internet – wrapped in the glow of the physical liberation felt in sport
itself. But while these totems of dissent and liberation were being
worshiped inside the stadium, the Metropolitan Police arrested 182
cyclists outside on the roads of Stratford, on suspicion of disobeying
police orders: the largest mass arrest in the UK for many years.

The orders disobeyed were restrictions imposed on the customary Critical
Mass bike ride, under Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986, mainly that
the ride was not to go north of the river Thames. The pretext – so-called
‘intelligence’ – was a single internet posting suggesting that people would
’cause chaos’ in the West End on that evening. The police admitted that
they had no other evidence for this planned event, no meetings, flyers or
other internet presence; nor did they attempt to trace its origin.  This
creates a strong suspicion that the post was part of the police operation.

Further, it has become apparent that the Section 12 restrictions, and the
arrests and prosecutions which followed, were based on no more than the
fetishes of the Met, particularly Temporary Commander Michael Johnson, and
of over-indulgent Crown Prosecutor Ed Hall. To the police’s chagrin, no
evidence from the past few weeks has proved the Critical Mass ride to have
been disruptive to the capital’s transport flow, and it certainly did not
threaten the Opening Ceremony.  It is also clear, as it was clear to
anyone on the night, that the policing operation caused far greater
disruption to traffic in London than a Critical Mass could ever dream of,
as they temporarily closed every bridge in central London, and flooded
Stratford with police vehicles.

Since the feared disruption never occurred, even when the Section12
restrictions were transgressed, it follows that the restrictions were
unnecessary by their own standards. Even more so, it was neither necessary
nor proportionate to kettle and arrest almost 200 people, detain them for
half a day, and go on to press charges, dragging people through the
bureaucratic tedium of the legal system.

The most charitable explanation of events suggests that the conditions
imposed were a knee-jerk reaction: they were decided without knowledge of
Critical Mass, nor with any regard to the likelihood of Johnson’s fears
becoming manifest.  Johnson was patently ill-informed about the nature of
Critical Mass, including its size, usual scale of disruption or its
susceptibility to ‘hijackers’.  His worst-case scenario, in which Critical
Mass cancelled the Opening Ceremony, was an irrational fantasy. However,
once arrests had been made, prosecutions had to follow to vindicate the
operation, and to lessen the chance of successful claims against the
police.

This explanation has one main problem, which is that the Metropolitan
Police had ample knowledge of how Critical Mass works and how it had been
policed in the past.  It was visibly policed for years, until the House of
Lords ruling (Kay v. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police) established
Critical Mass as a ‘customary’ procession.  Since then, police in plain
clothes have attended the Mass (as confirmed by Chief Inspector Sonia
Davis during the trial), and the event appears in routine security
round-ups. It is entirely unbelievable that its workings were unknown to
officers in the Met. Prevention of disruption, if this were truly the aim,
could have been achieved by many less restrictive measures.

A more critical explanation would point to a group of police officers with
a wealth of experience in crushing assembly, free expression and protest.
In his evidence, Johnson boasted of his presence at the Brixton riots, the
miners’ strike, the G20 demo in which Ian Tomlinson was killed, and the
student demo in which Alfie Meadows was hospitalised – moments he recalls
as exemplary policing. He testified that in Summer 2012 he sought ‘an
interpretation of the legislation’ – namely, to see how far he could push
the application of Section 12 to Critical Mass. For police like Johnson,
laws passed imagining one extreme (in this case, serious disruption) are
there to be tested out on examples at the other extreme (minimal
disruption). That is a far more sinister motive than trying to prevent
imagined disruption to the opening ceremony.

The prosecution of nine out of 182 arrestees was based on flimsy evidence
scraped from hundreds of hours of footage from police on the ground and in
the air – a weak operation, but well worth it for what Hall and Johnson
clearly believe their function to be: the costly creation of criminals.
They were indulged in this function by the District Judge Roscoe, who
resolutely ignored plain lying by police officers. We can note that Roscoe
was one of the magistrates who worked all hours after the 2011 riots
handing out long prison sentences for handling stolen goods.

The true reasons for imposing the Section 12 may never be known, but it is
clear to us that the legality of Johnson’s actions is questionable even by
the criminal justice system of which he is a part. Despite the best
efforts of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service,
District Judge Roscoe acquitted four of the nine.  Roscoe’s clear wish to
avoid delving into the reasonableness of Johnson’s belief, or his capacity
to make calculations of necessity or proportionality, led her to uphold
the legality of his Section 12 restrictions. Unfortunately for Johnson, a
ruling in a mere Magistrate’s Court does not set precedent, and so does
not provide the ‘interpretation of the legislation’ he was looking for.

Keep riding, stay disruptive.  We’ll see you on the streets.

The CM defendants

For those of us who have spent many years fighting excessive and intrusive surveillance of political protest by the state, the victory of John Catt in the Court of Appeal this week was especially sweet. The judgement rules that the gathering and retention of information about John Catt’s political activity was an unlawful breach of his right to a private life, and leaves police intelligence gathering practices in tatters.

John Catt was an 85 year old peace campaigner with no criminal history, known for making sketches at protests. He attended demonstrations against the EDO factory in Brighton called by the organisation Smash EDO where he was noted and identified by the Domestic Extremism Unit – at that time called the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). When he made a subject access request under the Data Protection Act, the NPOIU was found to hold details of his appearance, his vehicle, demonstrations he had attended (not all of which were connected to Smash EDO), and other personal details. His daughter, Linda Catt, also found that her details and presence at the same demonstrations were similarly recorded by the NPOIU.

This sort of data gathering is not unusual. It was revealed at a trial of Fitwatch activists in 2010 that the criteria for taking and retaining photographs were extremely broad. Forward Intelligence Teams would consider a person ‘of interest’, and therefore take and retain photographs of them, if they appeared regularly at protest, appeared to be a prominent individuals or peer leaders, or were seen associating with other ‘persons of interest’. Even MP Jeremy Corbyn and the then interfaith adviser to Nick Clegg, Fiyaz Mughal ended up on the CRIMINT database for their part in a Stop the War protest.

The Catt judgement makes the continuation of these practices problematic for the police. In ruling on the case of John Catt, Lord Justice Moore-Bick commented that

“Having seen copies of various reports in which Mr. Catt is mentioned and the information provided in response to his subject access request, we are left with the clear impression that police officers who attend protests organised by Smash EDO for the purpose of gathering intelligence record the names of any persons whom they can identify, regardless of the particular nature of their participation.”

“One factor of particular importance is whether those data have been subjected to systematic processing and entry on a database capable of being searched in a way that enables the authorities to recover information by reference to a particular person.”

The judgement found that the information on Mr Catt which the police had retained was “information falling within the scope of his personal autonomy over which he is entitled to retain control.” The retention of this information was, in John Catt’s case, disproportionate and unjustified.

This does not, of course, mean the end of police data gathering, just that they will have to justify it on the basis of the threat posed by the individuals they are monitoring. The police will probably still be able to gather all sorts of personal data on anyone who is engaged in direct action (however peaceful) or who have convictions related to protest (however small). But it should, if the police comply with the law, mean the end of routine and systematic gathering, retention and processing of personal data of people present at political protest. It should also mean that others who have no convictions should be able to get their details taken off the database.

Ensuring that the police comply with this ruling presents a whole new set of problems, but the judgement is welcome nevertheless. It is the latest in a series of challenges which, little by little, have opened up surveillance practices to legal and public scrutiny. John Catt should be applauded for his courage and determination in making this happen.