European court says 'kettling' tactics in 2001 lawful

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, August 2, 2025 17:44
VIEWED: 2432
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:55 PM

Quote:
"Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001.

Police blocked off Oxford Circus and corralled those inside for seven hours.

The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Three people - George Black, a Greek national from Australia; Bronwyn Lowenthal and Peter O'Shea - who had nothing to do with the demonstration, took the case to Europe claiming they were "deprived of their liberty".

They were joined by Lois Austin, from Basildon, Essex, who had been taking part in the protest.

'Volatile conditions'

The court said: "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions.

"This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence. Although the police tried to start dispersing the crowd throughout the afternoon, they had been unable to do so as the danger had persisted."

It was the first time the court in Strasbourg had been asked to rule on kettling.

The House of Lords had earlier ruled kettling on that day had been "necessary, proportionate and lawful".

The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said: "The essence of the judgement really is that kettling is lawful if it's done in the right way, if it's proportionate and is enforced for no longer than reasonably necessary and if it's being undertaken to avoid personal injury and damage to property."

The European Court's Grand Chamber of 17 judges, presided over by Belgium's Francoise Tulkens, said: "Even by 2001, advances in communications technology had made it possible to mobilise protesters rapidly and covertly on a hitherto unknown scale.

"Article 5 did not have to be construed in such a way as to make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public."

The judges ruled that the convention also placed a duty on the police "to protect individuals from violence and physical injury".

Earlier this year, in a separate case, the Met won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during G20 demonstrations in 2009.

In that case Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid, challenged the legality of restraint methods used against them in April 2009 when they were contained by officers in Bishopsgate in the City of London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17378700

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:39 PM

Hello,

This judgment is highly questionable.

Confining people for seven hours, anywhere, amounts to imprisonment. This is true whether the confining space is a jail cell or a street block.

I would not accept such confinement from protesters. I sure as hell wouldn't accept it from the government.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

GEEZER

Thursday, March 15, 2012 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This judgment is highly questionable.

Confining people for seven hours, anywhere, amounts to imprisonment. This is true whether the confining space is a jail cell or a street block.

Note that the Court didn't say it wasn't imprisonment, just that, "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions.

"This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence. Although the police tried to start dispersing the crowd throughout the afternoon, they had been unable to do so as the danger had persisted."

They apparently decided that 'kettling', or temporary 'imprisonment' of the crowd was the best available response to what they considered a dangerous situation.

I'd be interested in any alternate suggestions you have.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:36 PM

On first glance this looks wrong to do to people.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

GEEZER

Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
On first glance this looks wrong to do to people.

As noted above, I'm interested in alternate solutions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:42 PM

Quote:
I'm interested in alternate solutions.

Let people go.

WHO are the police protecting from "violence"? The people being kettled?

Hardly.

This is simply an imposition of martial law on one group of people to protect another (more "valuable") group of people from violence which the police ASSUME "would have" taken place.

So they are making public space non-public, discriminating against a group of people, depriving them of their rights, on the assumption that those kettled MIGHT take part in violent action which MIGHT have impinged on more valuable people. I can't begin to fathom how the courts even think this is proper, since it is punishing people not for crimes being committed but for crimes which MIGHT be committed.

---------

IF the police really are worried about the safety of those on the streets, perhaps they should simply offer to escort them home.

GEEZER

Friday, March 16, 2012 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'm interested in alternate solutions.
Let people go.

And if those people do destroy property as has occurred in several other G20, World Bank, and WTO demonstrations, just explain to the folks who lost their property and livelihood that it's all for the greater good?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 16, 2012 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'm interested in alternate solutions.
Let people go.

And if those people do destroy property as has occurred in several other G20, World Bank, and WTO demonstrations, just explain to the folks who lost their property and livelihood that it's all for the greater good?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

I'd be happy to. Pre-crime is not a viable concept in Free nations. Preventative imprisonment is not a viable concept in Free nations. Presumption of guilt is not a viable concept in Free nations. Imprisonment without crime is not a viable concept in Free nations.

You wait for someone to break the law, and then you arrest that person.

If that job is so difficult that the police can't do it, then they should find someone who can. The solution is not to abandon all principles of justice and imprison everyone within an area of effect.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

GEEZER

Friday, March 16, 2012 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Pre-crime is not a viable concept in Free nations. Preventative imprisonment is not a viable concept in Free nations. Presumption of guilt is not a viable concept in Free nations. Imprisonment without crime is not a viable concept in Free nations.

had a nice example of that around here recently.

Woman had a restraining order against her husband because he'd threatened to kill her. He was arrested two times within 72 hours for stalking her, and released by a judge. He then went to where she was staying, beat her, dragged her to her car, drove her downtown, and killed her.

Sorry 'bout that, ma'am.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=46&sid=2784189

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Friday, March 16, 2012 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Pre-crime is not a viable concept in Free nations. Preventative imprisonment is not a viable concept in Free nations. Presumption of guilt is not a viable concept in Free nations. Imprisonment without crime is not a viable concept in Free nations.

I just looked up "preventive detention" on Wikipedia- I seemed to remember that it was legal in England. Not gonna quote Wiki, but it does seem to be legal in Canada, in some circumstances, and the article says that the situation in the UK is similar to Canada.

Like the religious freedom thread last week, there's a difference between what is legal or acceptable in the USA, and what's OK over there.

Various "tough on crime" legislators here in the US have proposed it at various times, but it has never caught on. Seems probably unconstitutional.
A Wiki paragraph mentions that Obama has considered applying it against the Guantanamo detainees, ( or is applying it, depends on your POV--). They don't seem to be getting a "speedy trial, that's fer shure. But then again, terrorists, even American citizen ones , of an ethnic persuasion, don't have, or deserve Constitutional rights. Or do they?

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE