Police admit arrest of anti-monarchy heckler in Oxford was unlawful
After a two-and-a-half-year battle, Symon Hill, 47, has been paid £2,500 in compensation from Thames Valley police over his arrest in September 2022.
Hill had been returning home from his church in Oxford on a Sunday morning, three days after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, when he found his way blocked by a procession to proclaim King Charles.
He asked local police officers how he could avoid the crowds and mentioned in conversation that he disagreed with the veneration of an unelected head of state.
'They got a bit defensive about it,' said Hill. 'One asked, 'Why are you here if you don't agree with it?' I was just going home.'
Charles was then declared our 'only' king and 'rightful liege lord'.
'Who elected him?' Hill called out from the back of the crowd.
A couple of people told Hill to shut up and he responded that a head of state was being imposed without the country's explicit consent.
Three security guards appeared and ordered Hill to be quiet. He said he argued back at which point a number of police officers 'swooped in'.
Hill was handcuffed and led away, as strangers challenged the right of the police to detain someone for voicing an opinion even if it was one with which they disagreed.
In police body-worn camera footage shared during the legal challenge, officers are heard saying: 'But we do need to fine or de-arrest as we will get a complaint off the back of this.'
Hill was subsequently released but later asked to voluntarily attend a police station. 'I was made aware then that it wasn't so voluntary so I did go to the police station,' he said.
He was ultimately charged under the Public Order Act with 'threatening or abusive words or behaviour'.
The charges were dropped on 5 January 2023 by the Crown Prosecution Service due to insufficient evidence.
Hill, who is a chaplain at Aston University in Birmingham, said he had been 'surprised' by the entire affair and by the two-and-a-half years it had taken for the police to admit their mistake.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
He said: 'Opposing the monarchy is not a crime. I'm very conscious that most people who are wrongly arrested are not able to take legal action.
'This is not just about me. It never has been. It is about the rights of all people to dissent, to express their views, to refuse to bow down, to assert the dignity and equality of all human beings.
'With the vague anti-protest laws as they are, anybody could face arrest for expressing an opinion in a public space. The law must be changed and the police must be held to account.'
Hill, who has a history of peace activism and protest, was supported in his legal action by the National Council for Civil Liberties, also known as Liberty.
Katy Watts, a lawyer at Liberty, said: 'We must be able to raise our voices on the issues that matter to us. A functioning democracy relies on the ability to voice different opinions and discuss them in public spaces. Symon's wrongful arrest shows how broad anti-protest laws are shutting down people's freedom of expression.
'We must urgently see a review of the broad anti-protest legislation to ensure that what happened to Symon cannot be allowed to happen again.'
Thames Valley police's deputy chief constable, Ben Snuggs, said: 'Thames Valley police has settled a claim with Mr Hill and has accepted that the grounds of the offence for which he was arrested were unlawful.
'Public order and public safety operations are a key part of policing and it's important we use these circumstances to help shape our future response.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
EUAN MCCOLM: Shouldn't we worry about the youth we're creating for the future?
It was once a crucible of intellectual inquiry, a revered institution where some of the greatest minds in politics were sharpened. The late Labour leader John Smith, the much-mourned Liberal Democrat MP Charles Kennedy and Scotland's inaugural First Minister, Donald Dewar, were all schooled in the great art of debate at Glasgow University Union. In the chamber of the GUU in Glasgow's West End, they – and others, including broadcaster and journalist Andrew Neil and banker Angus Grossart – learned the skills that would take them to the top of their professions. And they did so while – often ferociously – disagreeing with their fellow students. On Saturday, a women's rights group was thrown out of the GUU after staff complained that banners bearing feminist slogans made them feel unsafe. Words such as 'Women's rights are not a hate crime ' and 'I'm not a vet – but I know what a dog is' were considered so dangerous by management at the union that members of Let Women Speak – whose booking to meet there had previously been accepted – were refused service and kicked out. Earlier, those feminists had gathered outside the nearby Kelvingrove Museum to demand – months after the Supreme Court ruled that sex is a matter of biology rather than feelings – recognition of women's legal rights. Inevitably, a counter protest of angry misogynists disguised as progressives turned up to try to drown out the words of the participants. Those shouting down feminists outside the museum had the law on their side. Quite correctly, their right to free speech allowed their protest to go ahead. However, management at the GUU are not on such solid ground. Let Women Speak – headed by activist Kellie-Jay Keen – had paid in advance for use of a space within the union for their post-rally gathering. Ms Keen has already announced plans to launch legal action against the union, which – in common with other organisations captured by crank ideologues – is now on course to learn a costly lesson in the law. Discrimination against anyone on the basis of their entirely legal beliefs is no trifling matter. Shortly after the group was evicted from the GUU premises, Ms Keen said the male manager told them he was closing the bar because the women's beliefs and opinions could constitute harassment towards their staff and make them feel unsafe. How much more of this nonsense are we expected to tolerate? There is a tendency for us, when we age, to romanticise the past and our place in it. Times were tougher, people worked harder, bullets were faster… the list of ways in which we ancients dismiss the challenges facing the young people of the day is long and varied. Pub bores sneer at their every choice; from their politics (always wrong) to their preferred breakfast (the idea of eating avocado on toast really upsets some people), there is no end of critical commentary about their fecklessness. I've always tried not to be that man. It's not always easy. Frequently, during political debate, we hear talk of the future we are creating for our young people. Environmental activists argue – with science on their side – that more must be done to halt the devastation caused by climate change while others focus on the ongoing housing crisis, demanding more affordable properties and arguing for rent restrictions. The increased use of short-term contracts and the continuing transformation of traditional industries add to the feelings of uncertainty with which young people must wrestle. If those of us longer in the tooth are honest, we must admit that – in so many ways – we had things easier. If you left school in, for example, the 1980s, there were college places, better quality apprenticeships and plentiful white-collar traineeships in banks and insurance companies. Yes, fewer young Scots went to university but those who did were more likely to find good jobs upon graduation than students today. And, once in work, the purchase of a house was a reasonably straightforward process rather than a pipe dream for all but the most fortunate. At some stage in life, usually in childhood, we all learn that the world does not care about our problems. There are some good, compassionate people who do, and great campaigning organisations that give focus to their concerns. But reality does not give a hoot about our battles or our feelings. The world keeps spinning while we struggle by. Difficult though the realisation that the world cannot be shaped to accommodate our needs – or whims – may be, it is a useful developmental stage. Exposure to reality – messy and unfair – breeds resilience. To employ the old cliché, what does not kill us, makes us stronger. How disturbing, then, that the GUU's position is that feminist slogans should be considered a threat to safety. Members of Let Women Speak and other campaigning groups argue that, when it comes to the debate over gender, those who pose a real danger are the activists who continue to campaign for the prescription of powerful puberty-blocking drugs to emotionally confused children and the placing of trans-identifying men in women's prisons. What happened at the GUU last Saturday is in keeping with the aggressive way trans activists have reacted to feminists at higher education establishments across the UK and beyond. The Aberdeen-born philosopher and writer Kathleen Stock was hounded out of her lecturing job at the University of Sussex by students and – for shame – staff for refusing to adhere to the belief that a man can become a woman because he says so. The academic was terrorised by anonymous activists to the point at which she needed personal security to go about her everyday life. Eventually, Professor Stock received compensation from the University of Sussex, which was also fined £585,000 by the Government's Office for Students for its failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. In January last year, an employment tribunal found that the Open University (OU) had discriminated against Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology. The tribunal agreed bosses had failed in their duty to protect Professor Phoenix from harassment by colleagues and management. Like Kathleen Stock, Professor Phoenix's crime was to believe in the immutability of sex and the importance of women's rights. In common with the University of Sussex and the OU, the GUU is failing all who attend by censoring and excluding feminists with perfectly mainstream views. What terrible damage trans extremists have wrought across the higher education sector. Theirs is a culture in which intellectualism withers and dies. It remains legitimate to worry about the future we're creating for young people but there are also concerns about the young people we're creating for the future.
ITV News
a day ago
- ITV News
Jersey officials seize nearly £800,000 from major British drug smuggler
Officials in Jersey have seized nearly £800,000 of criminal proceeds from a major drug smuggler. Eitan Benzur, a British citizen, worked with others to supply 8.5 tonnes of cannabis from 2010 to 2014, with a combined street value of more than £9 million. He concealed the significant amounts of cash in safety deposit boxes and by transferring money abroad. After fleeing to Israel, he was eventually extradited to the UK in 2020 and was sentenced at Bristol Crown Court to nine years in prison. His assets were confiscated in Jersey following a request from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the island's Attorney General. £397,000 has been transferred to the UK Home Office, while the remaining £397,000 will be kept in a Jersey confiscation fund, which the Treasury Minister can ask to use for crime prevention measures. Jersey's Attorney General, Mark Temple KC, says: "This case yet again demonstrates Jersey's ongoing commitment to assisting its overseas partners to ensure that criminals are denied the benefit of their criminal conduct." Chief Crown Prosecutor for the CPS Proceeds of Crime Division, Adrian Foster, adds: "Thanks to our joint contribution, Eitan Benzur has been stripped of his ill-gotten gains, which have been shared between our jurisdictions to prevent future economic crime."
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Rise in sex offenders using 'sleepwalker defence' to deflect rape charges, CPS prosecutor warns
There has been a rise in rapists claiming they suffer with sexsomnia to evade conviction, a top Crown Prosecution Service lawyer has told a Daily Mail podcast. Speaking to The Trial, Charlotte Coulton-Smith said the CPS is making sexsomnia a 'key part of training' so case workers can better identify offenders who fraudulently claim to have the condition. The concern comes as courts have increasingly encountered the sleep disorder defence. Sexsomnia is a rare condition that causes people to engage in sexual activity while completely asleep, with sufferers having no memory of their actions. Those with the genuine condition can engage in a range of unconscious sexual behaviours including touching others, masturbation and full intercourse. In the last decade, several high-profile cases across Europe have seen men acquitted of rape after successfully proving to courts they suffer from the condition. But not all attempts succeed. Dean Final, 32, who was jailed for 11 years for rape in August, recently tried and failed to use a sexsomnia defence. 'It's certainly on the increase', Coulton-Smith told Trial host Caroline Cheetham. 'We're seeing more cases where defendants will claim to be suffering from sexsomnia. 'We are going to make sure that we are robustly challenging and dealing with these cases within the CPS. 'I don't expect to see it going away anytime soon. Women and girls need to be aware of it.' Sexsomnia cases present a complex challenge for courts, as there is no standard diagnostic method to verify the condition. Courts are more likely to accept it as a legitimate defence when defendants have a documented history of sleepwalking or display telltale signs during the alleged incident - such as keeping their eyes open throughout the sexual activity. Other key indicators that help distinguish genuine sexsomnia from fabricated claims include complete memory loss of the events and an absence of complex, coordinated movements during the activity. However, there is still debate within the medical community whether the condition actually exists. Coulton-Smith, who helped prosecute Final, described how the CPS worked to easily disprove his sexsomnia claim. 'Final served a claim that he was suffering from sexsomnia. We really wanted to make sure that never got in front of a jury. 'It was clear that there was no proper, expert foundation to say he was suffering with sexsomnia. 'He had no history of sleepwalking. In fact, we asked for a statement from the prison to say, has he been sleepwalking – they told us no. 'We asked his ex-partner: has he ever sleepwalked before? She told he hasn't. 'Effectively, this behaviour started and stopped just for this event. It's a clear demonstration of why we need to tackle this issue head on. 'If it's not properly challenged, this could be a road map for abusers to carry on their abusing. 'We will be looking with laser detail whenever this type of defence is raised.' To listen to full interview about the Dean Final case and the 'sexsomnia' defence, subscribe to The Crime Desk now.
