Marching as to law

The countryside and anti-war demonstrations in London highlighted the right of peaceful protest.

Victoria MacCallum meets the solicitors advising behind the scenes

This autumn London rediscovered its protesting spirit.

On 22 September, the countryside came to London - around 400,000 to be exact, protesting at the government's proposed ban on hunting and the erosion of rural communities.

Less than a week later, 150,000 anti-war demonstrators took to the streets, protesting against military action in Iraq.

This newly reawakened spirit of protest extended to Brian Haw, an anti-war demonstrator who earlier this month won his battle to continue a one-man protest on the pavement opposite the House of Commons.

A court dismissed Westminster City Council's claim that Mr Haw - who has been resident in his 'peace camp' for 16 months - was causing an obstruction because his belongings spilled onto the pavement by two feet.

Protests require meticulous planning as well as passion, and lawyers are almost always involved behind the scenes.

Matthew Knight, senior partner of two-partner Tunbridge Wells firm Knights, has represented the Countryside Alliance, which organised September's Liberty and Livelihood march, since 1997.

The alliance held its first protest, the countryside rally in Hyde Park, in July 1997.

'In preparation for this, I had to negotiate with the Royal Parks Police to get permission for the gathering,' says Mr Knight.

'I also did some contractual work to do with hiring car-parks, trains, and buses to transport the demonstrators to town.'

Although by the time of the second demonstration, in March 1998, the alliance's organisational abilities were 'vastly improved', according to Mr Knight, the police still needed convincing that there would be no trouble.

'The police had to be reassured that 280,000 people marching through London would not be a danger to public order, but when the march passed off peacefully their confidence was restored.'

Although the police's worries may have been allayed enough to have little problem with the alliance's most ambitious project to date, the Liberty and Livelihood march, the lawyers still had work to do in negotiating with other parties.

'The route of the march passed through three local authorities: the City of Westminster, the City of London and the Greater London Authority (GLA),' he says.

'Mayor Livingstone is a known opponent of blood sports, and the GLA caused a lot of difficulties for us.'

For example, on the Thursday before the march the GLA sought an injunction to prevent it, claiming that the route would damage the fabric of Parliament and Trafalgar Squares - two areas under its jurisdiction.

'We were called in to negotiate with the GLA's legal team, and the difficulties were resolved as we explained that the march would actually pass by the squares on a walkway provided by the City of Westminster.'

Such negotiations tend to form most of the work for lawyers in this area.

Louise Christian, a partner at leading civil liberties firm Christian Fisher Khan in London, advises the Stop the War Coalition, the group behind last month's anti-war march.

'The work is really more about negotiations and meeting the police than legal issues,' she says.

'The first anti-war march was held soon after the 11 September terrorist attacks, and the police were understandably nervous, particularly as some of the speakers at the final rally in Hyde Park were addressing the crowd in a foreign language.

They were worried that the speakers would be inciting violence, and the police would not be able to understand what was being said.'

Ms Christian, along with other coalition members, managed to reassure the police that their fear of violence was unfounded.

'We helped them realise that Muslims who are opposed to war are also opposed to terrorism,' she said.

'It was important to clear this up before the march, because misunderstandings can often result in police demanding unreasonable conditions for the marches and unreasonable requests from the demonstrators.'

Although she points out that there were no arrests in either last year's march or this, and the atmosphere at both was 'peaceful and multi-cultural', the same cannot be said of all protests.

The May Day anti-capitalist demonstrations have in recent years become tarnished by rioting.

On May Day 2001, a heavy police presence at the demonstrations in London resulted in - notoriously - hundreds of people being coralled by police into Oxford Circus, where they were kept for a number of hours.

Although the police claimed their actions were designed to prevent a repeat of the previous year's violence, the demonstrators who were fenced in have a different attitude.

Sadiq Khan, a partner at Christian Fisher Khan, is representing two of the demonstrators who have issued claims against the police for false imprisonment and violating their human rights to free expression, peaceful assembly and not to be arbitrarily detained.

'One client was an innocent bystander with a business on Oxford Street who was caught up in the disturbance, and the other is a mother who was unable to collect her young child from the childminders because she was kept prisoner for hours,' says Mr Khan.

He claims that hundreds of the other detainees are waiting on the outcome of these two test cases - which are funded by the Legal Services Commission - before taking action themselves.

'These cases will outline what the state's powers are in policing demonstrations,' he says.

'Although there was a clear crime and disorder problem at May Day 2000, the state has an obligation to act in a proportionate manner; this country has a long history of peaceful protest, and people's right to freedom of expression is being denied because of over-zealous policing.'

This is an attitude with which Andrew Katzen, partner at east London firm Moss & Co, agrees.

'A balance needs to be struck between the need to protect people from potential violence and the need for people to express themselves with passion,' he said.

Moss & Co, along with King's Cross-based John Blavo & Co, was vilified by sections of the press in the aftermath of May Day 2001 for allegedly advertising its services on a card handed out at the demonstration which offered legal advice to protesters.

Both firms have since been comprehensively cleared of wrongdoing by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (see [2001] Gazette, 25 October, 4), and the Daily Mail has printed an apology for its accusations.

Despite this unpleasant experience, Mr Katzen - whose firm has a history of advising protests - still advocates strongly the need for demonstrators to know their rights.

'When you're putting yourself in a situation where there is a potential for conflict, it's vital to know your rights beforehand, rather than having to pick up the pieces afterwards,' he said.

'People who are organising a political protest which they fear may end in arrests often call me in advance as a preventative measure, and my role is essentially the same as any lawyer - telling people what they can and can't do within the law, and what the likely consequences of their actions will be,' adds Mr Katzen.

Phil Shiner also has substantial experience in advising activists of their rights.

Last year, he set up PeaceRights, a law firm which caters for the peace movement, as an offshoot of his own firm Public Interest Lawyers (see [2001] Gazette, 22 November, 4).

He briefs and advises people involved in non-violent political protests, whose conduct may result in allegations of trespass, obstruction of highways and criminal damage to areas such as nuclear sites and laboratories involved in manufacturing genetically modified foods.

'I have a great deal of sympathy for people who stand up to the authorities and bring to public attention things that are being done in their name,' he says.

'If people did not protest about issues such as nuclear submarines, then the powers that be would get away with an enormous amount of things.'

Mr Katzen agrees.

'The suffragettes brought about a real change in policy directly through their actions, and people need to appreciate the potentially huge impact that today's protesters can make.'