Police kettling challenged in court

from The Guardian by Vikram Dodd

Case arises as police prepare to handle protest march against government cuts through London on Saturday Police officers used punches to the face, slaps and shields against demonstrators whom police chiefs accept had nothing to do with violence, the high court will hear today. The case relates to the G20 protests in London on 1 April 2009 during which Ian Tomlinson, a bystander, died after being struck by an officer.

The court action is a test of the police tactic of kettling, used to detain a mass of people at protests. The case precedes Saturday's march through London to protest against government budget cuts that will again test how effectively Scotland Yard can manage protests. According to court documents seen by the Guardian, police in charge of the protest ordered a climate camp to be kettled and then cleared, but officers were left to decide how much force they should use.

Video shot on the day shows demonstrators trying to avoid being beaten by raising their hands in the air and chanting "This is not a riot" at police clad in helmets and riot gear. Officers on the videos are seen to strike demonstrators, who cannot be seen on the video to be engaged in any violence. Notebooks secured from some officers contain admissions they used violence, but officers said this was to protect themselves or colleagues.

On 1 April 2009, there were several demonstrations in the area, but the court case deals with a climate camp in Bishopsgate. A police chief accepts it was peaceful but decided it should be contained to avoid potentially violent people joining it. Officers were told they were containing or detaining those in the climate camp to prevent a breach of the peace. Protesters would be held for hours.

The case has been brought by three protesters, one of whom says his girlfriend was beaten by police and then denied medical treatment. The protesters bringing the case say police were indiscriminate in detaining and isolating the peaceful climate camp. In documents setting out their case, their lawyers say: "The police took action against the climate camp as if it were a violent crowd … That is how the instruction to impose containment was interpreted by officers on the ground."

Extracts from police notebooks record the force they used. One officer said he saw a man trying to get near officers "so I punched him in the jaw and he moved backwards … I delivered a baton strike to the shoulder of a male trying to push into officers." Another officer said: "To get the protesters who would not move back, I needed to hit the flat part of my shield to get them to move back. I also used open handed palm strikes." Another wrote: "I used my round shield to push back the crowd, which was 15 people deep." The officer claims the crowd resisted and some punched and shoved back "so I retaliated with shield strikes both flat and angled. I also delivered open palm strikes to a number of individuals and fist strikes as well." Police chiefs say officers were expected to use their "discretion".

Lawyers for the protesters claim the actions of the police broke the law: "There was no lawful justification for violent force being used on any of these occasions. Accordingly, its use and any associated instructions … were unlawful," they allege in court documents. The solicitor, John Halford, said: "This case exposes the shameful fact that many police officers lack even a basic understanding of their proper role which is to facilitate non-violent protest, not suppress it using violence. That problem extends from the officers on the ground that used force on a peaceful crowd as a first resort to their senior commanders, who gave no guidance that doing so was unacceptable. "What the courts have held to be an extreme step – particularly because of the risk of fundamental rights being compromised – has now become routine."