Closed courts and secret prosecutions: The Sarah Everard vigil attendees

Last year, the nation was left shocked at the brutal and senseless kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by PC Wayne Couzens. It shone a light on the extreme prevalence of sexual violence against women and a deeply concerning police culture. The crime sparked global outrage and a deep sense of sisterhood, with hundreds of people gathering in Clapham Common, south London, to pay tribute to the 33-year-old. 

What began as a peaceful vigil, with the lighting of candles and laying of flowers, quickly turned into a violent attack by Met police, who cited a violation of COVID-19 regulations as their reasoning behind their heavy-handed crackdown. They reportedly feared that the event had become an “anti-police protest.” 

This disproportionate use of force came under heavy criticism, but resulted in six vigil attendees being arrested and charged. Those charged included Dania Al-Obeid, aged 27, from Stratford; Vivien Hohmann, aged 20, from Clapham; Ben Wheeler, aged 21, from Kennington and Kevin Godin-Prior, aged 68, from Manchester, Jade Spence, aged 33, from Lambeth, and Jenny Edmunds, aged 32, from Lewisham.

The Met has now been forced to discontinue their attempts to convict by the Crown Prosecution Service, however, further legal action lies ahead after one of those, Dania Al-Obeid, was charged under a single justice procedure (SJP). Al-Obeid is now launching civil proceedings against the Metropolitan police. She cites a breach of her rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Closed-court process: Attendees prosecuted without their knowledge

Vigil attendee and survivor of sexual abuse Dania Al-Obeid is one of the people who were arrested and charged following the March 13th vigil. In the police statements that accompanied Al-Obeid and four others’ prosecutions, officers said they had been verbally abused by the crowd and weren’t convinced that people were there to “solely pay their respects.” The officer who detained Al-Obeid said she “refused” to engage when told that she was in breach of Coronavirus Regulations. The PC proceeded to restrain Al-Obeid, and use what they called “sufficient force” to arrest her. She was subsequently detained. 

Al-Obeid was later convicted under the Single Justice Procedure in her absence, without her knowledge, and with no independent oversight of the police’s charging decisions. She only became aware of the charge, which would have left her with a criminal record and £200 via the media, when contacted by the Evening Standard courts correspondent, Tristan Kirk. Al-Obeid went on to complete a statutory declaration which outlined she had no knowledge of her conviction. The magistrates’ court accepted this, and once the conviction was reopened, Al-Obeid pled not guilty. The case was then sent to the magistrates’ court, with the CPS presiding over the case, rather than the Met. Al-Obeid was one of several convicted under the Single Justice Procedure. 

Prosecution of Sarah Everard vigil attendees ‘discontinued’

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recently notified lawyers that attempts by the police to criminalise the six vigil attendees would be “discontinued” as it was “not in the public interest.” 

This decision follows a ruling by the High Court in March that the Met’s decisions leading up to the event were “not in accordance with the law,” and that the force had “misinterpreted Covid laws” in its attempt to block the event organised by campaign group, Reclaim These Streets, and also failed to consider the human rights of freedom of speech and assembly. The Met had attempted to contest the court’s ruling but was dismissed twice on the basis that the case had “selective and misleading analysis” and had “no arguable basis.” Despite this ruling, the police went on to pursue the now discontinued criminal action.

Jeni Edmunds, one of the vigil attendees, said: “I’m glad the Met has been forced to drop this. That police used the same power abused to coerce Sarah Everard to her murder to arrest mourners at her vigil speaks volumes.” Edmunds added: “I’m so exhausted from this going on for so long, but I am fortunate to be in a position where I am able to be defended. I know that where there is power granted, there is the potential to abuse it.”

Meanwhile, Jamie Klingler, an activist with Reclaim These Streets, and one of the individuals who had arranged the RTS vigil, speaking to the Big Issue, commented: “For 15 months the Met refused to take accountability for their actions, asking permission to appeal and then – upon being told that their grounds for appeal were hopeless by High Court judges – still wasting public money to appeal that decision to the court of appeals where they were denied again.”

Klingler went on to say she wanted to know how much taxpayer money was used by the Met to launch its repeated appeals: “As one of those taxpayers, I want to know how much money was wasted fighting us. We deserve someone to be accountable for those foolhardy decisions. The fact that they continue to fight FOI requests on various grounds continues the Met’s legacy of covering themselves at every turn rather than learning from huge errors in judgement,” She said. 

Hodge Jones & Allen partner Raj Chada, who represented Jennifer Edmunds, commented that the decision was one that “any reasonable lawyer would have come to.” Edmunds’ representative said there was a “clear conflict of interest” in allowing the police to proceed to charge in cases where the conduct of the Met itself is “likely to be an issue.” Chada said: “That has meant a waste of public money and increased anguish for clients, which may have been worse if they didn’t seek legal advice.’

Civil suit launched against MET police

Dania Al-Obeid has now launched civil proceedings against the Met regarding their breach of her rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Speaking to The Guardian, Al-Obeid, said: “To be convicted behind closed doors for standing up for my human rights, and our rights just to be safe from violence, felt extremely unjust. At the time, I didn’t feel like I could fight it, I felt like shrinking and taking up less space. I started to blame myself for ever speaking up. It brought back some of the terrible experiences in my past, and took me to a dark place, where I didn’t think my voice mattered, or that I even had a right to speak.”

Adding: “However, I’m extremely lucky to have a legal team of amazing women who told me my rights and said what was happening was unlawful. That’s why I eventually got the strength to push back. “I am now, therefore, taking steps to bring a civil claim alongside other women seeking to hold the police accountable for their actions, both at the vigil and since.”

Rachel Harger, a solicitor at Bindmans LLP representing Al-Obeid, said: “The Metropolitan Police’s efforts to double down on their attempts to legitimise their policing operation and conduct in and around the Clapham Common vigil is entirely unsurprising, but the fact that they have continued to do so under immense public scrutiny and criticism further illustrates that this is a police force that believes it should be able to act with impunity.”

Secret courts and their implications for justice 

Jennifer Edmunds’ representative, Raj Chada, said that the case puts the SJP under the microscope and that these kinds of prosecutions have serious implications for justice in the UK. The SJP were introduced in 2015 and are administrative decisions that are made in a closed court. According to research, 57% of the 1.5 million cases that go through magistrates courts in England and Wales each year are charged under the SJP. There were 535,000 SJP cases heard in 2020 alone. On top of this, The Independent has outlined that while around a third of CPS-reviewed charges since 2020 were incorrect, prosecutors don’t review charges under the SJP, meaning that the scale of incorrect charges is likely much larger. 

Speaking about the increased use of the SJP to The Telegraph, Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate and founder of charity Transform Justice, said the government is pursuing greater use of it, in place of open court hearing, in order to  save money, something which the government itself has admitted. Tara Casey, of the charity Appeal, outlined that processing cases in this way  poses a serious risk of large scale miscarriages of justice.

The government has called the SJP an “accessible, proportionate, effective and more efficient” way to deal with less serious cases, however, SJP defendants are not eligible for legal aid, and many are deprived of the opportunity to access legal representation. In addition to this, 71% of people who are issued with an SJP notice don’t respond – with prosecutors only having to prove that the notice was sent, not received. Charities have subsequently argued that the government has put open and fair justice at risk to clear the case backlog more quickly and save money.

Looking ahead, despite the criticisms of the SJP, the government plans to expand the bracket of offences that can be dealt with in this way, and, according to reports, “relax the rules” on the legal advice given to magistrates.