Met Police accused of breaching human rights by trying to prevent Sarah Everard vigil

ITV News London's Carolyn Sim speaks to the vigil's organisers, as they explain why they've launched a legal challenge.

Organisers of a vigil in memory of Sarah Everard claim the Met Police breached their human rights by trying to stop the event going ahead.

They claim they were forced to withdraw plans after being threatened with fines of £10,000.

Campaign group Reclaim These Streets proposed a socially-distanced vigil for the 33-year-old, who was murdered by former Met officer Wayne Couzens, near to where she went missing in Clapham last year.

The four women who founded the group and planned the vigil are bringing a legal challenge against the force over its handling of the event, which was also intended to be a protest about violence against women.

Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler argue that decisions made by the force in advance of the planned vigil amounted to a breach of their human rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

They also say the force did not assess the potential risk to public health.

Their lawyers told the court at the start of a two-day hearing on Wednesday that notes of a Met gold command meeting the day before the proposed event included a statement that “we are seen as the bad guys at the moment and we don’t want to aggravate this”.

Tom Hickman QC, representing the four, said in written arguments: “The most significant ‘threat’ identified was not public health but the perceived reputational risk to the (force), including in the event they were perceived to be permitting or facilitating the vigil.”

The four women are asking High Court judges to make a declaration that their human rights were breached and are seeking £7,500 in damages, which they will donate to a charity concerned with violence against women if they are successful.

They withdrew from organising the vigil after being told by the force they would face fines of £10,000 each and possible prosecution if the event went ahead, the court heard.

A spontaneous vigil and protest took place instead – over which the force was heavily criticised for its actions, but later cleared by a police watchdog.

The Met is defending the claim and argues there was no exception for protest in the coronavirus rules at the time and it had “no obligation” to assess the public health risk.

Mr Hickman said the force’s actions in relation to the vigil reflected its policy at the time that large gatherings were “inevitably unlawful, even for protest, which did not accurately reflect the legal position”.

He also said the force “failed properly to consider whether the claimants might have a reasonable excuse” for organising the gathering, and did not consider whether restricting or preventing the vigil would be “necessary and proportionate” on grounds of public health.

The barrister told the court there was, for example, no assessment carried out of whether the public health risk posed by the event was likely to be low, medium or high and the force gave “no consideration” to whether proposed social distancing, mask wearing, marshals and test and trace measures would reduce the risk.

In written arguments, Mr Hickman said the vigil was planned for Ms Everard and “all women who feel unsafe, go missing from streets, or who face the fear of violence every day”.

He added: “Above all, the event they sought to organise was about collective physical presence of women coming together to feel safe, supported, and to reclaim public space for Ms Everard and other women who have lost their lives or been the victims of violence.”

The hearing is due to continue on Thursday.