Court refuses anti-capitalist protestors cathedral appeal
Anti-capitalist protestors camping outside St Paul’s Cathedral were today refused permission by the Court of Appeal to challenge orders evicting them.
Three judges headed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, dismissed applications for permission to appeal against Mr Justice Lindblom’s ruling in the High Court last month.
Granting orders for possession and injunctions against Occupy London, Mr Justice Lindblom had said the proposed action by the City of London Corporation - which it pledged not to enforce pending appeal – was “entirely lawful and justified”, as well as necessary and proportionate.
The appeal judges said that the protestors – who are understood to have reached the end of the legal road – had raised no arguable case.
The City said there was an "overwhelming'' case for the court's intervention because of the impact on St Paul's Churchyard.
The limited interference with the protestors' rights entailed in the removal of the tents – which numbered up to 200 and have been there since October 15 last year – was justified and proportionate, given the rights and freedoms of others.
Its lawyers said that the camp acted as a magnet for disorder and crime in the area, had an impact on worshippers, affected trade, and caused waste and hygiene problems.
But the Court of Appeal was told that the steps taken to evict protesters were more “extreme and draconian” than necessary.
John Cooper QC said that the form and make-up of the camp as represented by the tents was part of the expression and integrity of the protest, which was not intended to be indefinite.
He said the judge had carried out a “rubber-stamping exercise” rather than a rigorous consideration of the alternatives.
In the High Court, the protesters said that freedom of expression was a liberty which must be jealously guarded.
The camp did not prevent worship at St Paul’s, and any impact it did have on those visiting, walking through or working in the vicinity was not solely detrimental, they argued.
Politicians, members of the public and commentators had expressed support for the camp and the sentiments behind it, at a time when there was a consensus that such issues needed addressing.
Arrangements had been made for sanitation and cleaning, the camp was properly managed and the level of criminal activity within the district had not increased, they said.
