Met tactics of pre-emptive arrests and searches lawful, says ruling with implications for policing in runup to the Olympics
Royal wedding protesters have lost their high court claim that they were the victims of unlawful searches and arrests in a ruling that endorses the pre-emptive arrest police tactic just before the Olympics.
The Metropolitan police were accused of "suppressing anti-monarchist sentiment" over arrests to prevent disruption when Prince William married Kate Middleton in April last year.
But two judges ruled on Wednesday that the police had acted within their powers and were not guilty of operating an unlawful policy.
Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Openshaw, dismissed applications for judicial review from 20 individuals among scores arrested or subjected to searches before or on the wedding day.
"We find nothing in the various strands of the claimants' case, whether taken individually or cumulatively, to make good the contention that the policing of the royal wedding involved an unlawful policy or practice, with an impermissibly low threshold of tolerance for public protests," said the judges.
Human rights activists say the case has major implications for the policing of other major events, including the Olympics.
Karon Monaghan QC, appearing for the bulk of those detained, argued at a May-June hearing that her clients were all pre-emptively arrested under an unlawful policy to prevent disruption to the wedding.
The signal for their release from custody – without charge – was the "balcony kiss" of the royal couple.
She argued the case touched on "the most important of constitutional rights, namely the right to free expression and to protest, both of which are elemental to a properly functioning democracy".
The judges described the case as "complex". One group of claimants involved 15 protesters arrested at various locations in London, including at a coffee shop in Oxford Street and Soho Square where some were attending the Queer Resistance "zombie picnic".
The claimants include Brian Hicks, 44, a republican with some previous convictions for minor offences when young, but nothing for more than 20 years.
The judges said he was arrested and searched on his way to a "Not the Royal Wedding" street party in the West End organised by the campaign group Republic. He was held at Albany Street police station, where he was subjected to a strip search.
Another claimant was a 16 year old, who cannot be named and referred to as M, who was stopped, searched and arrested and detained for nine hours before being released without charge.
He also had his DNA, fingerprints and photograph taken which the police subsequently refused to destroy.
Two claimants, Hannah Pearce and Shirin Golsirat, who were living in squats in south London, challenged the lawfulness of searches made of those squats under search warrants issued the day before the wedding.
They contended that – although the warrants authorised searches for stolen bicycles, bike parts and computers – the real purpose was to prevent disruption to the wedding.
Other claimants Theodora Middleton and Dafydd Lewis challenged the legality of police searches of a climate camp near Heathrow airport.
The searches were conducted the day before the wedding on a warrant issued by Bromley magistrates which the claimants also said were legally flawed.
But, in a judgment running to 270 paragraphs, the high court judges dismissed all claims of human rights and statutory violations by the police.
On the major issue of whether the police were operating an unlawful policy to pre-empt wedding day disruption, the judges said they took the view that "all the arrests of the claimants were justified on their facts."
But even if some arrests had been unlawful "it would not support the existence of an unlawful policy or practice."
The ruling was a victory for Met lawyers who argued that the police action was justified and proportionate.
They said a previous direct attack on the Prince of Wales's car in London was one of the factors taken into account when plans were drawn up for policing the wedding.
The event, attended by the royal family, foreign royalty and other heads of state, followed student demonstrations in November-December 2010 and the TUC day of action on 26 March last year.
The police contended that it was clear from contemporary documents and statements from officers that those in charge were well aware of the distinction between lawful, peaceful protest on the one hand and preventing breaches of the peace and criminality on the other.
The Met argued there were "ample grounds" for the searches and arrests of each of the 20 individuals seeking judicial review.
The aim was to prevent what officers "reasonably believed would be an imminent breach of the peace or criminality on the day of the royal wedding".