Protest takes many forms. Demonstrations can be planned far in advance, with routes negotiated with police and local authorities. Other protests are more spontaneous. The vigil held in south London on 13 March last year, 10 days after Sarah Everard went missing and one day after a serving police officer was charged with kidnap and murder, belongs in the second category. The outpouring of horror that followed Ms Everard’s abduction near Clapham Common, and the revelation that a police officer was thought to be responsible, gave rise to a plan for women to gather in a public display of grief and anger.
It reflects appallingly on the Metropolitan police that, 15 months later, the force continues to pursue those involved in a way that looks vindictive. The criminal convictions and fines given last week to three of those who attended the vigil, for breaking Covid laws, are an affront to those who felt strongly about Ms Everard’s murder, and other recent police failures. That proceedings were conducted in secret compounds this insult, as does the Met’s absurd defence of its heavy-handed tactics with claims the gathering was “anti-police”. Three others who attended the Sarah Everard vigil have court dates later this month.
The Met’s blunders following Ms Everard’s murder have greatly exacerbated tensions. In March the force lost a case brought against it by four women who formed the Reclaim These Streets campaign group and tried to organise a socially distanced vigil. The high court ruled that the force acted illegally in banning the event and threatening the women with £10,000 fines.
That judgment should have been an opportunity for the force to take a step back and consider whether it would have been better to work with activists to enable a socially distanced vigil to go ahead, rather than banning it and setting the stage for the less orderly gathering that took place. There is no question that the days immediately following Wayne Couzens’ arrest were a challenging period for officers as well as the public – and particularly for young women who found it all too easy to imagine themselves in Ms Everard’s position.
Instead, the Met sought leave to appeal not once but twice, with its final attempt turned down by the court of appeal last month. This was another chance to draw a line, perhaps to issue a statement acknowledging difficult circumstances that should have been handled differently. Again, the force did not take it.
The impression left by the decision to press ahead with prosecutions of six people who went to last March’s protest is that the Met is not only unable to accept criticism, but determined to punish those who have the temerity to stand up to it. The decision not to fine the prime minister for attending events that broke Covid laws during the same period casts the harsh approach to those who attended a vigil in an even worse light.
There are many other reasons to be disturbed by the Met’s recent record, particularly its handling of race issues, as well as the new curbs imposed by the government on the right to protest. But the clumsy, aggressive handling of the public reaction to Ms Everard’s murder leaves a particular stain. On the basis of its current actions, the force has little hope of shifting it.
