Heavy-handed Coronation Arrests Should Concern Us All, writes Duncan Lewis criminal law solicitor (9 May 2023)

As the world tuned in to watch the full pomp and splendour of the crowning of King Charles III this weekend, an altogether more unsightly happening was underway, firmly out of earshot and away from public gaze. Reports have now widely circulated that the Metropolitan Police (the largest force in the country and charged with public safety for the central London coronation parade) carried out at least 64 arrests over the course of coronation Saturday. Of this number it is understood two were volunteers for Westminster Council who were handing out rape whistles as part of a women’s safety campaign (clad in red hi-vis jackets embossed with Met Police logos no less). Only four individuals have been charged, two of which concern sundry public order and drugs possession allegations. Ask any duty solicitor on the central London scheme and they’ll tell you that is par for the course most Saturdays. The remainder of those arrested were in large part members of Republic, an anti-monarchist group who had planned a peaceful protest on the corner of Trafalgar Square (after setting out their plans in a four-month liaison with senior police officials). There were 52 people associated with the protest group who were held in custody for the duration of the celebrations and subsequently released on police bail. The time-frame is unclear but common practice would suggest a standard three-month period might apply in the majority of these cases. Plenty of time for the police to scratch their heads and work out if any offences have actually been committed, much less whether any crimes can be proved to an evidential standard that charges can be authorised. Whatever your position on the monarchy, the heavy-handed approach taken by officers this weekend should concern us all. The new, and much maligned Public Order Act 2023 is once again the focus of the conversation. This piece of legislation, barely on the statute books having been signed into law last week, has handed police officers new powers to shut down protests before they occur by lowering the threshold for “serious disruption.” It has attracted both support and opposition and has been part of the wider public discourse concerning tactics employed by more groups such as Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. It is unclear whether powers pursuant to the new legislation were exercised in the 52 anti-royalist cases. However, many of those arrested have lamented failures by the officers to detail the grounds and powers being used. Some have suggested that some more imaginative common law offences were cited, such as conspiracy to breach the peace. Others have said officers exercised grounds in reliance on the new statute and cited possession of items which can be used to ‘lock on’ – i.e. attaching oneself to street furniture with bicycle locks and cable ties etc, as prohibited by s.1(1a) of the Act. Antimonarchist and CEO of Republic, Graham Smith said his members’ arrests ‘are a direct attack on our democracy and the fundamental rights of every person in the country … each and every police officer should hang their heads in shame ... (they) showed no judgment, no common sense and no basic decency … this was a heavy-handed action which had the appearance of a pre-determined arrest that would have occurred regardless of the evidence or our actions. These arrests have also destroyed whatever trust might have existed between peaceful protesters and the Metropolitan police’. In contrast, Ken Marsh, the Metropolitan Police Federation chairman, has gone on record as saying that his officers had done an ‘incredible job’ and ‘not one incident took place’. The fact that 64 people were deprived of their liberty, conceivably entirely unlawfully, does not qualify as an incident in his book is perhaps telling of the attitude taken by the Met’s top brass. Rishi Sunak has climbed the nearest fence he could find by publicly averring that ‘the police are operationally independent of government and make these decisions based on what they think is best.’ It is, however, heartening to hear that senior Labour politicians have spoken out about the arrests. Sadiq Khan (former human rights and criminal defence solicitor himself), has promised to seek answers from Scotland Yard over the detention of the protesters and volunteers: ‘some of the arrests made by police as part of the coronation event raise questions and, while investigations are ongoing, I’ve sought urgent clarity from Met leaders on the action taken’. The Met has now issued a statement expressing ‘regret’ over the arrest of only six individuals (including Mr Graham Smith) and disclosing that inquiries into them have been closed with ‘no further action’. Their statement also clarified that the new law had been deployed in making these arrests and that the evidence in each case was insufficient to warrant prosecution. Mr Smith, who had spent 16 hours in custody over the weekend has unsurprisingly said he will not be accepting the apology and will seeking remedy at law for his false imprisonment. Others may follow suit. Let’s hope that we do get some answers to this entirely unsavoury affair sooner rather than later. And, if further apologies are owed to those falsely arrested, let’s hope the Met has the decency to publicly say it got it wrong in those instances too and draw some lessons for the future. However, 15 years in this job tells me that the best they can expect in that situation will be a call from a withheld number or a no-reply email cancelling their BTR because there is ‘insufficient evidence to take the matter further’. About the author: Sunjay Versaniis a Solicitor, High Court Advocate and Director of the City of London and Harrow crime team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors. For advice in any criminal litigation matter contact Sunjay via email at sunjayv@duncanlewis.com or via telephone on 020 7923 8537. Duncan Lewis Solicitor’s criminal defence department is renowned for its well-prepared, high quality work and the ability to assemble first-rate evidence and documentation. The team has a significant practice defending clients in serious and complex criminal cases, particularly gang related serious crime, murder, and drugs importations. Their defence expertise extends to motoring law offences; business and HMRC fraud; cases of sexual abuse, including rape; violent crime; and terrorism.