By Gabriel Princewill-
A prominent Human Rights Lawyer along with Liberty Human Rights group were in error in criticizing police for interfering with protesters against the Monarchy during the procession in September, The Eye Of Media.Com can reveal.
Adam Wagner, (pictured)a prominent barrister of Dougherty Chambers, along with, Liberty group was amongst those who criticized police for interfering with protests, erroneously citing freedom of speech as their stated reasons why protesters were free to effectively undermine the solemn process of a funeral.
The matter was taken up for analysis by expert lawyers, teachers, and social workers over several months, beginning from October 22, last year, whilst other arrests associated with subsequent protests about the king’s coronation and the Israel-Palestine war were also evaluated with respect to the rights to protest, and the prevention of the breach of the peace.
This publication has attempted to engage both The Liberty Group and Dougherty Chambers for several months over the arrests, mostly inquiring about their claim to be lodging a legal suit against The Metropolitan police.
So far, no compelling grounds have bene provided for the threat of legal action, neither is any legal action known to have made with respect arrests of protesters at the queen’s funeral.
The general consensus after a wide array of views were examined is that most of those protesting during both the funeral of the late Queen Elizabeth II, and the king’s coronation this year, and the lawyers who supported them, were either more interested in bringing attention to themselves, misinterpreted the Human Rights Act that guarantees freedom of speech.
The Human Rights Act is explicit in its provisions that all rights are limited to the rights of others.
The latter provision necessarily includes those honouring the dead.
The matter was first presented for examination, following the arrest of a 22 year old unnamed youth who heckled Prince Andrew during the procession of the queen.
He was charged for breaching the peace, but the charge was eventually dropped because the Crown said it considered other ways to address the problem.
The case was eventually dropped by The Crown prosecution Service(CPS) apparently because it was not in the public interest to pursue a case.
However several insiders confirmed that the CPS had actually abandoned the story to prevent the case getting messy and dragging Prince Andrew’s name further in the mud as defense for the young man were likely to delve into the murky involvement of the Prince in the case.
Analysts concluded they were avoiding the youth expanding on his reasons which would have further deepened the negative publicity about the case. The decision left a gap in the precedent it sets in matters like this.
Professional advisers at the time advised this publication not to openly examine the issue, given the sensibilities of many of the issues at hand.
The right to protest is generally protected by law; the limitations to that right has never really been crystallized.
A nation and family in mourning was pitted against groups of people who ostensibly had strong convictions to highlight their disapproval of the monarchy and emphasize why they felt the demise and funeral of the late Queen Elizabeth was momentous in the wider scheme of things.
Some believed or hoped her passing would herald a major transition to a new epoch characterized by various changes consistent with their respective ideals.
Yet, while it should have been obvious that they couldn’t have picked a worse and insensitive time to protest, individuals of such leanings would strongly beg to differ.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak has given police new powers to curb protests in some circumstances- a clear affirmation that all protected rights have limitations.
A preconceived notion that lawyers to understand all the fundamental principles of law is mistaken, given the depth and nuances of law, as well as the inherent biases humans display in different situations.
The procession of the queen was an opportunity for many Human Rights to flex their muscles by openly warning the police off, but when cornered by The Eye Of Media, they were unable to make any arguments to defend their stance.
Wagner and Liberty group had been vocal about the rights of protesters but had no rebuttals for our watertight argument that a balancing exercise is necessary when competing rights arise.
Wagner was among those who attempted to criticize police for challenging protesters, but when confronted with the fact that rights exist in context and purpose, the veteran barrister had no words in response.
Free speech was not intended to be expressed provocatively where people are gathered to commemorate the life of someone who has died. The drafters of the Human rights act did not design free expression to be used imprudently, and in an insensitive manner.
Later that day, barrister Paul Powlesland tweeted to say that a police officer told him he would be arrested if he wrote ‘Not My King’ on a blank piece of paper Mr Powlesland was holding up in London’s Parliament Square.
He later posted a video of the encounter, the Metropolitan Police tweeted on Monday evening saying: “The public absolutely have a right to protest and we have been making this clear to all officers involved in the extraordinary policing operation currently in place.”
”It is an established fact among insightful lawyers that none of the provisions in the Human Rights Act is absolute but are qualified rights contingent on the observation of other rights, anther lawyer said about the matter.
Wagner with all his accolades failed to recognize this when being vocal against the police.
A spokesperson for Liberty Group had no rebuttal for our well assessed view on the matter except to say’ ”all we were saying was that people have the right to protest”, but fell short of addressing the fact those rights depend on a holistic perspective of the context in which specific rights can lawfully be exercised.
”If Prince Andrew’s Heckler was left unchallenged for his conduct, it would be tantamount to permitting more people to behave in the same reproachable manner as he did, leading to the potential of mayhem if such people were physically confronted by those rightfully repelled by their behaviour, one lawyer said on the condition of anonymity.
The police’s discretion in arresting the young ill-advised protester, was therefore correct.
Precedence
The right to Freedom of Assembly and Association under Article 11 ordinarily gives precedence to those who gathered to mourn the queen’s death over any other supposed rights.
Protesters who gathered at the same venue of mourners and well-wishers of the queen were inadvertently constituting a nuisance by intruding on the rights of those who had assembled to honour her death.
The assembly of the protesters would have been defensible under free speech had their protest taken place on different day or a different venue where protesters had not gathered.
Misunderstood
Freedom of speech is one of the misunderstood civil liberties protected by the Human Rights Act and does not exist in a vacuum.
If it did, people would be justified for conducting protests in an open wedding, and school children would plead freedom of speech for the right to insulting their teachers while a lessons are being conducted.
The example of teachers in a classroom is an apt one. The right of the teacher to educate the class is uppermost in that setting, and a student who thinks the teacher is incompetent would be a nuisance if they repeatedly made that point during lessons or held a placard in class for the teacher’s resignation.
This would not be freedom of speech but rather amount to being a nuisance.
Wagner, who is a prominent Human Rights lawyer was expected to understand all the nuances of the Humans Rights Act 1998.
Those who gathered to honour the queen did so in accordance with their right to freedom of assembly- a right that trumps that of freedom of speech in those circumstances.
Adam Wagner and Dougherty Chambers were contacted for comment. They declined to comment.