Court finds arrest and detention of protester "oppressive and unconstitutional"

Image of Laurene Veale

Action against the police: After a 4-day jury trial, the County Court finds that the police acted in an “oppressive and unconstitutional manner” when arresting and detaining a young protester for alleged antisemitic chanting

Cloisters’ Laurene Veale successfully represented the Claimant in this action against Nottingham police for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. This is an important decision in which the Court was required to determine whether the police can lawfully arrest a peaceful protester on the basis of an allegation of antisemitism, without the police themselves taking a view on the question.

The Claimant, a 22-year-old from Nottingham, took part in support of the Palestinian right of self-determination. A member of the public reported the protest as offensive and antisemitic. Police attended the scene and arrested the Claimant (the only black protester), without establishing what had been said or done that was allegedly antisemitic.

HHJ Jonathan Owen found that the actions of the police officers were an abuse of the police’s power of arrest. The arresting officer failed to exercise any independent judgment on whether the Claimant had committed a public order offence.

He found that the police:

“simply and unthinkingly (…) cast themselves in the role of the “enforcers” of a complainant who had taken offence at what was being said and who had not presented to the officers anything that suggested that there was a criminal offence rather than a political disagreement in which “offence” had been taken. Over that political disagreement, the officers heavy-handedly and misguidedly rushed to arrest the Claimant, handcuffed them, subjected them to a humiliating (…) period of detention, and subjected them to the indignity (in a person of good character) of being finger-printed, photographed and swabbed on the inside of the mouth.  The Defendants’ officers acted in an oppressive and unconstitutional manner.”

HHJ Owen ordered the payment of exemplary damages, a rare sanction, awarded only in those cases where the Court expresses particular disapprobation for arbitrary or unconstitutional behaviour on the part of the police. The judge expressed concern that the police had not demonstrated any appreciation that arresting a protester on a bare allegation by a member of the public was a blatant interference with the right to freedom of speech and protest:

“What happened in this case, in my judgment, was a really bad, unjustified, interference with freedom of speech where the police managed (…) to become a tool of real and active oppression at the instigation of another private citizen without observing any of the safeguards of independence and independence of judgment to which the Claimant was entitled.  Stepping back, bluntly, in my judgment, lessons need to be learnt by the Defendant (…)”.

The judgment serves as a significant reminder of the constitutional boundaries on police authority and the fundamental importance of protecting individuals' rights to lawful protest and political expression.

The judgment can be found here.