By Gabriel Princewill-
The arrest of protesters at the King’s Coronation was both problematic and justified, depending on what perspective is adopted, according to a lawyer.
Criminal lawyer, Fabian Nworah from Rockstone Solicitors in London, told The Eye Of Media.Com that every right contained in the Human Rights Act is dependent on the observance of every other right, and cannot be considered in isolation.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
He said: ” some of the officers may have used a level of force not justifiable on the grounds presented, but generally speaking the right to protest is not an absolute one, and the police have discretion under new Public Order Laws to limit those rights.
”In fact the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly makes it clear that the rights contained in its provision can be limited for public order and security reasons. Those who emphasise freedom of expression are only highlighting their ignorance when it comes to the proper application of law.
”When a group lawfully assemble to celebrate an occasion, it can amount to a breach of the peace for people to premeditatively plan to obstruct it.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
”The Met Police were actually generous in allowing protesters to gather with the intention of obstructing the coronation. Protesters were heard booing when King Charles was crowned and many chanted ‘not my king’. The very presence of protesters undermining the coronation served to undermine the occasion , and in reality every protester who attended was complicit in disrupting the coronation.
”It just so happens that this area of law is poorly understood by both lawyers and the police, which is why they were even allowed to be there. Had police announced that protesters were prohibited from attending the coronation, it would have bene perceived as a suppression of dissent.
”Therefore it was right to allow them attend, but their attendance was not as lawful as they think. It just so happens that police provided flawed reasons for arresting some of the protesters, which was problematic. Otherwise the arrest themselves were justified”’.
The Metropolitan police has expressed regret for some of the arrests, but groups that gathered to obstruct the coronation where arguably breaching the peace.
Wrongful arrests premised on weak grounds are truly regrettable, but protest leaders like Graham Smith were not justified in arranging protests designed to undermine the king’s coronation.
Many aggrieved individuals and groups have highlighted the right to free expression as grounds to obstruct a coronation, ignorantly forgetting that the liberties guaranteed to citizens under the Human Rights Act 1998 are not absolute, but subject to a balancing exercise.
That exercise must necessarily take into account other rights under the provision which includes the right to assembly under Article 11.
Researcher and education expert, Claire Coleman was critical of protesters and defended the police.
She said: ”What these people don’t realise is that people have the right to the quiet enjoyment of an occasion without disturbance. The right to freedom of speech does not trump that freedom of assembly, especially for a historic occasion like the coronation. Once people arrive with an intention to obstruct an event, they are actually breaching the law.
”Think about that poor woman who came from Australia and spent an awful amount of money, only to have her time ruined by protesters. A lot of people don’t think of that fine balance.
Just because the police have been found wanting in many areas lately does not mean they are always wrong. They must feel under attack, but in this situation they were more right than they realise”. The coronation of a king doesn’t come every year.
On Monday, the Met Police apologised to protesters arrested during the coronation of King Charles.“
A statement read: ”The investigation team have now fully examined the items seized and reviewed the full circumstances of the arrest,” the statement added. “Those arrested stated the items would be used to secure their placards, and the investigation has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock on and disrupt the event.
“This evening all six have had their bail cancelled and no further action will be taken. We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route.”
Police perceived the preparation of the group to protest to constitute a nuisance, but based their perception of the breach on erronous grounds.
They admitted there was no evidence to support their flawed stance, but protesters within close proximity of the coronation were always risking legal confrontation.
Several objectors including Human Right Groups have struggled to fully grasp the limitations of rights embodied in the Human Rights Act.
Most well informed people are cognisant of the fact that the right to free expression cannot counteract other existing rights, including that of holding a celebration.
Millions watched the coronation on television, in which King Charles was crowned King of Britain.
Anti monarchists who gathered at the coronation have their right to object to the coronation, but an organised plan designed to obstruct the coronation is both unlawful and indefensible.
analysis of the situation based on facts and established legal principles.
Peaceful protest/ Restrictions
While peaceful protest is a fundamental right in many countries, including the UK, it is not an absolute right. The exercise of this right must be balanced against other rights, and can be subject to certain restrictions, such as those necessary for the protection of public order, national security, and the rights of others.
Under UK law, the police have the power to arrest individuals who they reasonably suspect of committing an offense, including offenses related to public order and security. The police officers at the scene were acting within their authority in arresting those protesters who were breaking the law.
The European Convention on Human Rights recognizes this principle, stating that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In the case of the King’s Coronation protest, the police determined that the restrictions on the right to protest were necessary to ensure public safety and the rights of others, such as the right to attend the coronation ceremony without fear of violence or disruption.
In the same way that too much restriction on free expression can led to a suppression of dissent, too much emphasis on individual rights at the expense of public safety can lead to anarchy and chaos.
In order to strike this balance, it is crucial for authorities to develop clear guidelines and procedures for the exercise of the right to protest. These guidelines should take into account the potential risks and benefits of protest activity, as well as the principles of proportionality and necessity.
Protesters say police had been in discussion with them in advance of the coronation and were surprised by what they saw as a U turn.
However, there appears to have been an asymmetry of understanding with regards what was agreed as acceptable conduct ,
In the now admitted case of arrested protesters without any intention to hook unto placards, police have conceded error there. That admission does not amount to a full vindication of protests.
Support for the monarchy is not universal , but royalty title has never been based on merit but rather on the acquisition of power on authourity. Scrutiny can begin from the point of the inauguration of a particular position, but entitlement to kingship is not an issue here.
Some countries like Australia and Jamaica have expressed plans to begin the process of developing a republican, as is their right, but experts agree that the establishment of the monarchy is a political issue that transcends dispute. It is here to stay.
King Charles’s ascendance to the throne has attracted lots of comment and criticism, but his position is sacrosanct and irreversible.
The committed determination to detract from the quiet enjoyment of an occasion is without lawful support.
The Met Police, intuitively aware of this fact acted accordingly , but have been unable to rationalise their actions due to a lack of collective sound grasp of very grey area in law.
In an article for the Evening Standard newspaper on Tuesday, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley said that, by Friday evening, his force had “become extremely concerned by a rapidly developing intelligence picture.”
He said the intelligence suggested some protesters were “intent on using rape alarms and loud hailers as part of their protest which would have caused distress to military horses.”
Rowley added that the Met had said in advance that “there would be a low tolerance of disruption and zero tolerance of security and safety threats.”
In a statement issued late Monday, the Met said the six Republic activists were arrested over concerns that they were “seeking to seriously disrupt the event” after officers found items that “could be used as lock-on devices” in their car.
However, police said that the investigation “has been unable to prove intent to use them to lock-on and disrupt the event.”
The Met said it made the arrests on Saturday based on the new and highly controversial Public Order Act, which came into effect when King Charles III signed it last week. The royal ascent is a formality, but its timing just days before the coronation raised eyebrows.
The Uk government recently rushed a controversial Public Order Act to encompass protests, empowering the police to make more bold arrests,
As predictable, Human Rights and protester groups have somewhat amalgamated to complain about the alleged heavy handedness of the police against protesters, conveniently overlooking the proper application of competing rights in a matter like this.
The bottom line is that the royal family and the British public have the right to enjoy the quiet enjoyment of a coronation without the nuisance of protesters whose objection can’t change anything.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar