Ulez protesters cleared of harassing Sadiq Khan

Telegraph

24-05-2025

A group of anti-Ulez protesters found guilty of harassing Sir Sadiq Khan have had their convictions quashed.
Four activists were charged over a demonstration named 'Khanage at Khan's' and subsequently found guilty after a trial at Westminster magistrates' court.
The Telegraph can reveal they have now been cleared of harassment after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) received 'new information' which undermined evidence in its case.
The protest was organised last April in response to the Mayor's controversial ultra-low emission zone [Ulez] expansion to the outer boroughs of London.
Motorists with non-compliant polluting vehicles must pay £12.50 a day to drive across all London boroughs.
Activists who have campaigned against Ulez have said the charge is having an impact on their commutes to work and even keeping some families apart.
A court heard the protest took place around 328ft (100m) from Sir Sadiq's home in Tooting, south London, according to the BBC.
All four entering not guilty pleas – Nicholas Arlett, 74, West Wickham, Martin Whitehead, 62, Beckhenham, Alison Young, 51, from Windsor and Lloyd Dunsford, 65, from Bexleyheath – were convicted of 'harassment of a person in his home' following a trial in December.
However, shortly after some of the group began the process of appealing their convictions, the CPS confirmed it would not be contesting an appeal.
As a result all four convictions were quashed by Judge Peter Lodder KC on May 15 at Kingston Crown Court.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Mr Whitehead, said: 'I'm not a serial protester – this is the only thing I've ever protested about – Ulez.'
The plasterer said that shortly after the trial he felt he had to 'explain himself' to those who had read about his conviction in the media.
'A lot of the newspapers got hold of the stories when we were convicted and that hurt a lot as well because it was widely publicised,' he said.
'We were made to look like we were horrible people and that got to me as well because all my neighbours saw it and people I worked for saw it – I had to explain myself.'
'I'm a grown man of 62, but I cried'
Reflecting on the day he found out his conviction had been quashed, Mr Whitehead said: 'I'm obviously over the moon that it's over and done with… we weren't expecting it at all – I mean, I'm a grown man of 62, but I cried.'
A BBC report of the trial stated that the Mayor was not thought to have been in his house during the protest, but District Judge Daniel Sternberg said neighbours on the street were 'disrupted in their private lives whilst in their homes'.
The judge also reportedly said the demonstration was loud and featured amplified music, including the theme tune to the television series The Bill, and that there was 'offensive language'.
He said he was satisfied that the protesters 'knew, or ought to have known, that their presence was likely to cause alarm or distress to Sadiq Khan'.
Mr Whitehead, Ms Young and Mr Dunsford were each fined £500, with a victim surcharge of £200.
Mr Arlett had a higher level of culpability than the others and was fined £750, along with a £300 victim surcharge.
However, now the groups' convictions have been quashed, any full or partial payments made will be repaid.
The victim surcharge is used to support victims of crime through the Victim and Witness General Fund – which means the money paid in this case will not go to Sir Sadiq himself.
A CPS spokesperson told The Telegraph: 'We have a duty to keep every case under continuous review and after receiving new information which undermined the evidence in our case, we did not contest the defendants' right to appeal their conviction.'
'Procedural issue'
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the decision was down to a 'procedural issue' rather than any problems with the 'substance of the evidence'.
They said they were unable to provide further details.
Lawyer Luke Gittos, who was representing two of the protesters at the time the convictions were quashed, said it was very rare for convictions to be quashed at this stage.
Mr Gittos, whose firm did not represent any of the group during the trial, said: 'It's extremely rare – it's an implicit concession that the convictions were wrongly obtained and that happens very rarely.'