Call for Palestine Solidarity Marchers to 'Pay to Protest' Slammed by London Assembly Members as 'Completely Unworkable'
A proposal to make some protest groups pay towards policing costs in London has faced strong criticism during a London Assembly hearing, with experts labelling it "unlawful" and "completely unworkable".
The idea was put forward by John Woodcock - who is also known as Lord Walney - the Government's 'independent adviser' on political violence and disruption.
The former Labour MP - and now a crossbench peer appointed to an adviser role by Rishi Sunak's Government - suggested the idea as a solution to the strain on police resources caused by frequent large-scale demonstrations, singling out pro-Palestine protests, which have been happening almost fortnightly since Hamas' 7 October 2003 attack on Israel and its subsequent war on Gaza.
Legal experts and assembly members raised serious concerns about the practicality and legality of the proposal, warning it could infringe on fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, a renowned protest lawyer and Barrister for Doughty Street Chambers, told the London Assembly's policing committee on Wednesday: "I cannot see how a proposal for protesters to pay is lawful. It shows a real misunderstanding of Articles 10 and 11 [of the Human Rights Act]."
It ignores that there's a positive right to protest that the state must facilitate. The proposal completely misunderstands that. It's unlawful, it wouldn't get off the ground, and practically, it's completely unworkable
Kirsty Brimelow, KC
Tellingly, sitting next to Lord Walney, policing expert Matt Parr - the former chief Inspector for HM's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services - agreed that the 'pay to protest idea', currently being reviewed by the Government, was "completely unworkable".
"I simply cannot see how that could be made to work, even if there was a legal framework that supported it. It would allow the police to say, effectively, 'we're a bit busy this month. We can't have this protest....It's costing too much this month already.
"I'm afraid that would enable police to set the bar too low, and effectively, they would always be able to find an excuse to not [allow] it."
Related reading: Controversial 'Anti-Extremism' Adviser Lord Walney 'Remains in Office' Amid Confusion Over Role
Parr pointed out that the Met Police has the ability to apply for special grants for managing public order issues like mass protests, but agreed that "ultimately, the taxpayer is paying from a limited pot".
However, he added: "I don't think the way to reset the balance is to use…effective banning orders, or payment orders that you're recommending. I just can't see how it works."
Lord Walney defended his suggestion, arguing it would only apply to large organisations choosing to stage repeated mass demonstrations, not one-off protests.
"If an organisation chooses that particular method [of protest], week after week after week, you can see the strain which it is putting on other policing areas," Lord Walney told the hearing.
He highlighted that policing protests related to the Middle East conflict over the past 12 months had cost around £43 million and required 52,000 police officer shifts.
Related reading: Activists to Launch Fresh Wave of Protests Against 'Draconian' Anti-Protest Laws as Leading Actress Speaks Out
But, even those sympathetic to the challenges faced by the police expressed scepticism about the proposal's viability.
Labour Assembly Member Unmesh Desai raised concerns about the practical implementation of such a policy, questioning what would happen if organisations either couldn't or refused to pay, noting: "Laws become discredited when they can't be implemented."
Facing a wave of criticism, Walney conceded, "This is not a straightforward proposal, I'll grant you", before suggesting an alternative could be to allow police to factor in resource costs when deciding on whether to allow protests to proceed.
This idea also f
The idea was put forward by John Woodcock - who is also known as Lord Walney - the Government's 'independent adviser' on political violence and disruption.
The former Labour MP - and now a crossbench peer appointed to an adviser role by Rishi Sunak's Government - suggested the idea as a solution to the strain on police resources caused by frequent large-scale demonstrations, singling out pro-Palestine protests, which have been happening almost fortnightly since Hamas' 7 October 2003 attack on Israel and its subsequent war on Gaza.
Legal experts and assembly members raised serious concerns about the practicality and legality of the proposal, warning it could infringe on fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, a renowned protest lawyer and Barrister for Doughty Street Chambers, told the London Assembly's policing committee on Wednesday: "I cannot see how a proposal for protesters to pay is lawful. It shows a real misunderstanding of Articles 10 and 11 [of the Human Rights Act]."
It ignores that there's a positive right to protest that the state must facilitate. The proposal completely misunderstands that. It's unlawful, it wouldn't get off the ground, and practically, it's completely unworkable
Kirsty Brimelow, KC
Tellingly, sitting next to Lord Walney, policing expert Matt Parr - the former chief Inspector for HM's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services - agreed that the 'pay to protest idea', currently being reviewed by the Government, was "completely unworkable".
"I simply cannot see how that could be made to work, even if there was a legal framework that supported it. It would allow the police to say, effectively, 'we're a bit busy this month. We can't have this protest....It's costing too much this month already.
"I'm afraid that would enable police to set the bar too low, and effectively, they would always be able to find an excuse to not [allow] it."
Related reading: Controversial 'Anti-Extremism' Adviser Lord Walney 'Remains in Office' Amid Confusion Over Role
Parr pointed out that the Met Police has the ability to apply for special grants for managing public order issues like mass protests, but agreed that "ultimately, the taxpayer is paying from a limited pot".
However, he added: "I don't think the way to reset the balance is to use…effective banning orders, or payment orders that you're recommending. I just can't see how it works."
Lord Walney defended his suggestion, arguing it would only apply to large organisations choosing to stage repeated mass demonstrations, not one-off protests.
"If an organisation chooses that particular method [of protest], week after week after week, you can see the strain which it is putting on other policing areas," Lord Walney told the hearing.
He highlighted that policing protests related to the Middle East conflict over the past 12 months had cost around £43 million and required 52,000 police officer shifts.
Related reading: Activists to Launch Fresh Wave of Protests Against 'Draconian' Anti-Protest Laws as Leading Actress Speaks Out
But, even those sympathetic to the challenges faced by the police expressed scepticism about the proposal's viability.
Labour Assembly Member Unmesh Desai raised concerns about the practical implementation of such a policy, questioning what would happen if organisations either couldn't or refused to pay, noting: "Laws become discredited when they can't be implemented."
Facing a wave of criticism, Walney conceded, "This is not a straightforward proposal, I'll grant you", before suggesting an alternative could be to allow police to factor in resource costs when deciding on whether to allow protests to proceed.
This idea also f
Activity