Met Police in fresh appeal over Sarah Everard vigilon April 29, 2022 at 10:48 pm

The Metropolitan Police is seeking a fresh appeal against a High Court ruling that went against it over a planned Sarah Everard vigil last year.

The vigil made headlines after the Met said it would be illegal under Covid rules, forcing organisers to cancel.

Hundreds then attended an unofficial event paying respects to Ms Everard, who was murdered by police officer Wayne Couzens, which led to clashes.

The High Court said organisers’ rights were breached over the cancelled vigil.

In March, two judges argued the force’s decisions in advance of the planned vigil by Reclaim These Streets (RTS) amounted to a breach of their rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

This month, a High Court appeal against that ruling was dismissed, with part of the Met’s case being described as “hopeless attempts to challenge reasoned factual conclusions“.

Scotland Yard is now seeking permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge the High Court decision.

Vigil organisers RTS tweeted news of the latest appeal, saying the Met would be “spending more taxpayer money to continue to fight us in court”, adding: “Will it never end?”

In a statement, the Met said: “The reason we’re appealing this case is that we believe there are important points of principle around the role of police in advising organisers ahead of a proposed event and whether that should involve an assessment of the importance of the cause.

“We believe that clarity around these issues is of the utmost importance both for citizens and their right to free expression, and for the police in how they enforce legal restrictions while remaining neutral.”

In the High Court ruling, Lord Justice Warby said the Met had “failed to perform its legal duty to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse for holding the gathering”.

He added: “The relevant decisions of the (Met) were to make statements at meetings, in letters, and in a press statement, to the effect that the Covid-19 regulations in force at the time meant that holding the vigil would be unlawful.

“Those statements interfered with the claimants’ rights because each had a ‘chilling effect’ and made at least some causal contribution to the decision to cancel the vigil.”