John Cooper QC: Legal Advisor To Occupy London

Yes. I got to back to him and said, “How can I help?” I started emailing urgent advice to them immediately as the event was unraveling fast. Then, when things calmed down after a few days or so, I started giving them some more structured advice. I have to say, I’ve had conferences in strange places in my legal practice, but I’ve never ever had a conference in a tent outside St. Paul’s before…The first aspect of legal advice I was giving them was how to deal with the suggestion by the Cathedral that there were health and safety problems and that Occupy were causing them. It became very clear to me right from the beginning that there were no health and safety issues.

It’s a knee jerk response…The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which is the act that governs all of this, is being used and abused. It’s a decent good act. It’s there fundamentally to protect people in the workplace nine times out of ten, as is most health and safety legislation. But it’s been hijacked by a lot of people who simply want to use it, as in fact the Human Rights Act is sometimes hijacked by people and misrepresented. What happened is, the Cathedral just said health and safety, and environmental concerns are being affected. Now, I used to do some prosecution with Health and Safety Executive, so I know quite a bit about health and safety, and I realized very early on that there were no health and safety breaches.

Not only that, but they have trained health and safety officers – friendly, sympathetic, but nonetheless professional – that gave them a clean bill of health. Also, they have people skilled in fire safety that gave them a clean bill of health. What I advised my clients to do was write a letter to the Cathedral…I actually dictated the letter saying, if you say health and safety, tell us what the health and safety issues are and we will of course address them. Plus, we have to tell you now that we say there are no health and safety issues. That letter was never answered, and the health and safety thing went very quiet indeed after that. That was the first victory for Occupy effectively. In the whole catalogue of legal battles we’ve been fighting, that was their very first victory. It was an important victory because it showed them they could win legally and they could win on the law. It gave them confidence to take both the [City of London] Corporation and the Church [of England] on, and the confidence that they could use the law, and that the law could assist them as well as assisting the establishment.

It’s a similar sort of trajectory in that case. And it was very important. To use a sporting analogy, it was like scoring a goal in the first 10 minutes. It calmed the nerves, it gave confidence, and it set the team for the long haul.

One of the interesting things about this whole thing was the very quirk of fate that Occupy ended up on Church land. Not only were they taking on the City and the Corporation, they were also taking on the Church. This was an utter quirk of fate. What they planned to do was occupy Paternoster Square, the area immediately around the London Stock Exchange. For a lot of the time, my clients were known as OccupyLSX, London Stock Exchange, so many people who came late to the issue thought it rather bizarre that they were occupying outside St. Paul’s. What had happened was Paternoster Square had taken out an injunction to prevent Occupy in advance from taking control of Paternoster Square, and the police and indeed private security companies forced my clients out of Paternoster Square, effectively kettling them in St. Paul’s. So it was a result of the police, my clients would say, that they ended up outside St. Paul’s. Obviously God was guiding their hand, I’d say with my tongue in cheek.

That was the twist of fate which really excited public opinion around about November. We moved from October to November and public opinion was really excited –– and properly so –– as to the interface of church and state. This is where the Church got itself, as our clients would say, in a terrible mess. Because a lot of people involved with the Church, particularly the Chapter and Dean’s office of St. Paul’s, are very closely linked to the City and there was a lot of City people on its committees, and it found itself in a very insidious position. Because those people from the City that had influence with St. Paul’s were arguing for immediate legal eviction and a strong arm tactic, whereas others in the Church would say “no this isn’t appropriate” and could actually see the analogies between the work at the Church and what Occupy was trying to achieve. The irony upon irony was that St. Paul was in fact a tent maker. All these ironies were piling up, irony upon irony, which caused, effectively, a mini civil war within the Church.

There were some resignations from the Church. There were then some difficult positions that the Church took. As time went on the Church was giving the indication that it was not going to take part in the City’s eviction process and would stand back and pursue a different sort of tactic. But fast-forwarding to the court hearing which took place between the 19th and the 23rd of December…the Church, having said that they would not get involved with the eviction process, then presented evidence and assisted with witnesses to assist the Corporation’s action against us. And indeed, they presented one witness, a guy called Nicholas Cottan, a representative of the Church, who gave damning evidence against Occupy alleging defecation, alleging graffiti, alleging virtually desecration.

Which was evidence that the judge accepted. I said to him, in terms in the hearing, “Are you giving evidence with the Church’s blessing?” He said, “Yes.” That was on the record in the case...My clients were really confused and upset that the Church, having said that they wouldn’t get involved and indeed who were giving the public impression that they were tacitely at the very least supporting Occupy, they presented a witness that gave absolutely damning evidence –– and colorful evidence –– which helped the City win their case…So, shall we say, in my client’s eyes the Church didn’t come out of it very well at all.

There were other examples too. For instance [they claimed] schools were being turned away from trips to St. Paul’s. But we presented contrary evidence. Some schools, the more enlightened schools, were actually bringing their kids to see Occupy.

It was the Church, effectively, who had great influence in Occupy loosing this case. They were saying, for instance, that the Cathedral had to be closed down because of fire concerns, and yet we established during the evidence that it was especially opened for a wedding. There were contradictions, my clients would say, through and through the evidence. There was evidence for instance from City operatives who scrutinized and watched Occupy, as my clients would say, to such an extent that every little nuance, all the way to a paper being dropped on the floor, was recorded and logged. And, of course, every nuance, every potential transgression, brought to the attention of the judge as well.

No, no, no. It wasn’t infiltration. It was simply a large number of City officers were effectively tasked to watch every single move of Occupy…So there was absolutely intense scrutiny of Occupy. One of the things the witnesses also said in the case, one of them, Chief Inspector Zuber, he confirmed that in many respects the behavior of occupiers was exemplary, and there was never any proof, whatsoever, that any of the criminal transgressions asserted by the Corporation were as a result of the misbehavior of Occupy, rather than infiltrators.

That’s been the concern of my clients…What my clients have done when that’s happened is report them to the police. Indeed, it has to be said that the relationship between the occupiers and the bobbies on the beat, up until now, has been extremely cordial and respectful. It is also right to say during the whole court proceedings, despite my client’s very firm and sincere beliefs, they were extremely respectful of the court process.

We have issued already to every single member of Occupy outside St. Paul’s a legal fact sheet explaining to them their rights, when and if the police go in. They’re all fully legaled up to know exactly what they can do and what they can’t do, and what the consequences are if they do things.

Well, indeed, we have the legal observers there as well. We’ve got their emergency numbers. I’ll be one of those on an emergency number ready to advise at short notice.

It’s not so structured here. Effectively, it’s a couple of firms of solicitors, which I’ve been heading up. I’ve effectively been coordinating most of the legal defense this end, so it’s not so much a legal organization with a name.

Lessons to learned. One of the things I’ve suggested to Occupy, if ever the dust settles, is I’d like to be put in touch with my international legal colleagues so that we can exchange views and experiences…If you can provide my details to my counterparts in the States, I’d like to start a dialogue.

That’s interesting. I think the experience here has been different. Although there were a number of satellite groups giving advice, it wasn’t necessarily structured to this sort of protest. Here, I didn’t get the impression that it was a sleeping giant emerging from a cave. Here it was a state of almost blinking into the light. People just did not know how to react to it. Politicians didn’t know how to react to it. The country didn’t know how to react to it. In fact, some of the politicians who one would’ve expected a little more of a lead from, no one was prepared to take the lead. Even someone like Ken Livingstone, a candidate for the Mayor of London at the moment, was not necessarily supporting Occupy.

Quite frankly, the political class, what we call the chattering classes, have been frightened to stand up and support Occupy because the perception in the early days was it would be considered to be a bunch of trendy lefties who were out of the mainstream. The problem is that it’s been proven in the opinion of many that what Occupy has done is actually raised central themes which are at the heart of many people’s lives, people that aren’t necessarily traditional protestors. Suddenly the politicians in this country, the so-called thinkers and thought trenders, are now having to pick up the ball and run with it very late indeed. So the spine you mention, that sleeping dragon of the ‘60s in the States, it’s been a different experience here. It’s been one of, to begin with I would suspect fear and resentment, and not knowing how to react, and then the slow realization, even from those in the City, that what Occupy was doing was both respectful, mature, and probing.

Yes indeed. The battleground now really, as far as the law is concerned, is narrowing very tightly indeed. Obviously, as a lawyer, my role also is to advise my clients what their reasonable prospects of success are as far as the law is concerned…What we’re arguing is the growing and interesting area of law in this country called proportionality. In short, the argument was this: that we have our Article 10 and Article 11 rights, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, but as a matter of law, those rights can be interfered with if it’s proportionate. For instance, if the Article 10 and 11 rights of a set of people to be observed are so interfering with the rights of other people, then the Article 10 and 11 Rights can’t be interfered with, but they can only be interfered with as a matter of law in exceptional circumstances.

The crux of our appeal was that the judge just before Christmas simply rubber-stamped the Corporation’s demands to clear the site. And we say that that was not necessary, the judge went too far, steps could’ve been taken to ameliorate the problems that the Corporation raised without a complete and utter clear out. So the axis of the legal argument has been: did the judge go over the top? The argument about whether the judge should’ve removed them in the first place, well that’s a political argument now, because technically, in accordance with the Highways Act of 1980, I’ve got to tell you however disappointing this is, as a matter of law, he was entitled to remove them. As a matter of morals, that’s an entirely different matter.

So, the legal battle before the highest court in the land as far as appeals are concerned, before the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger – very respected judge – was on proportionality. I have to say there were some moments in the appeal hearing last week, which were very memorable indeed. When the judge was being handed copies of the Daily Mail and the Occupied Times he actually said, casually, “Oh, I’d prefer to read the Occupied Times than the Daily Mail,” which was a very nice moment. It caused a lot of tweeting. That went down very well. Indeed, these respected judges once again recognized, as the judge did just before Christmas, that whatever your views are on the Occupy issue, that the Occupy protestors are responsible and indeed people worthy of admiration.

That was important to us…One of the things I wanted to achieve in these court hearings, being realistic as far as the law was concerned, I had a dual objective on behalf of my clients, and that was to enable them to come out of the court hearing with their respect and integrity intact. What these court hearings have done was to allow my clients to impress upon the country through the reporting of the case, the judges and all those that were there to hear and listen, that in actual fact those on the right of politics who had tried to portray them as irresponsible, lefty hippies, will now have to eat their words. What’s happened in these cases, regardless of the judgment, is that the integrity, the maturity, and the far sightedness, and the fact that the occupiers are holding genuine, proper beliefs, has been vindicated in the court and that is an important step forward. I don’t think again, when or if the next occupation occurs, when or if anywhere else, that Occupy in the UK will start at the same base level as Occupy London Stock Exchange did. Because what the court case means is that never again will people be able to rationally degrade the Occupy movement as they did at the start of Occupy London Stock Exchange. We’ve proven on behalf of our clients the integrity of the Occupy movement. If you said to me, what’s the most important achievement of the court cases, what do I consider my proudest moment as far as my clients are concerned, is helping them to establish beyond any doubt whatsoever their integrity.

That is so important, and that’s just what I was saying about what we’ve achieved in the courts. And, indeed, from what I gather –– although I emphasize I’m not part of the political organization of Occupy, I purely give legal advice –– there are lots of projects being established for the future. So it seems to me that while Occupy UK had a slow start, it’s alive and kicking here…There are other Occupy sites being created in London as well. One of the more imaginative sites that our clients have done is they’ve taken over an Old Street magistrate’s court and they’re holding mock trials of the financial institutions there.

Isn’t it ironic, you watched footage of the Arab Spring etc., and in the West, we condemn what’s going on. We also look at the way, for instance, people in the West are treated when all they are trying to do is demonstrate against their inequalities – it’s interesting.

Oh, indeed…Our case, for instance, it’s been accepted is potentially pushing the boundaries of public protest law into the 21st century. That’s an expression that’s been used.

The law is always going to be the battlefield between different and competing needs. Where I would like the law to develop is around our Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) and Article 11 (Freedom of Assembly) rights, and the more flexible interpretations by the domestic courts as to how Article 10 and 11 rights can be maintained by the public. That it not simply be that because a corporation or a government makes an application that automatically the people who are exercising their Article 10 and Article 11 rights are removed forthwith. What we’re trying to do in the Occupy legal cases, is try and develop the law where there’s far more flexibility. So that Article 10 and 11 rights can be exercised, and with indeed those people that might feel that their property is being transgressed or their rights are also being transgressed, there can be proper compromise. At the moment, it’s simply a matter that if the people who have property contend that their lifestyles are being affected, then the Article 10 and 11 rights of protest, of freedom of speech and assembly, are somewhat draconian-ly, we can argue, wiped away.

Can wipe away the whole right…So, as a lawyer…my ambitions are to extend and protect the Article 10 and 11 rights and extend the threshold that exists before they’re interfered with…

You’re absolutely right. The fact that they’ve been able to stay there until nearly March, that was above and beyond their expectations. And it’s given confidence, as you say, to satellite groups. It’s also, quite frankly, been a shot across the brows of those that would remove Occupy from other sites. Because they will know if Occupy’s legal machine trundles into town next time, it’s not going to be easy.

Well, exactly. You know, I’ve been referred to as various things. Sometimes they’re complimentary, sometimes they’re not complimentary. But even my opponents actually are being very complimentary about me appearing on the horizon like some sort of benevolent Darth Vader. I take it as a compliment.



John Cooper practices out of chambers at 25 Bedford Row in London and is a visiting Professor of Law at Cardiff University. For more information visit John-Cooper.info and follow @John_Cooper_QC.

If you would be interested in participating in, or assisting in the formation of, an International Occupy Lawyers Guild please email nicole@suicidegirls.com and your details will be forwarded on.

“This is only the beginning” - click here to view the official post-eviction statement from Occupy London.