Presently analysing events of tonight at #OccupyLSX. Who needs sleep! Its 3:26 AM GMT on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, and John Cooper, Occupy Londons chief legal advisor is awake, on Twitter, and on the case following the movements eviction from their marquee St Pauls Cathedral base.
The eminent barrister and Queen's Counsel has worked tirelessly to keep the protesters in situ since the occupation began on Saturday, October 15, 2011. The battle the occupiers faced was made all the more complicated by the provenance of the site they were camping on, which straddles land owned both by the Church of England and by the City of London Corporation (a unique and ancient semi-private municipal authority which governs Londons square mile financial district).
When the first tent was pitched, even the most optimistic of Occupiers couldnt have predicted the encampment would remain in tact over four months later, so Occupy Londons ultimate eviction from St. Pauls can hardly be considered a defeat. An early attempt to remove protesters was thwarted when the Cathedrals then Canon Chancellor, Giles Fraser, recognized the occupiers right to protest peacefully and asked the police to leave. Frasers actions would ultimately lead to his resignation following some rather public infighting between Church officials with conflicting affiliations and agendas.
With the Church distracted by its own internal disharmony and facing a public relations nightmare if it litigated against members of the very congregation it was supposed to serve, the powers that be at St. Pauls at least publicly stepped aside and let the City of London Corporation spearhead eviction efforts through the courts. Following a hearing before Christmas, the High Court ruled in favor of the City on January 18, 2012. The occupation was granted a stay of execution pending a possible appeal, however, on February 22, three Court of Appeal judges declined to give Occupy London protesters permission to do so, setting the stage for this weeks eviction.
SuicideGirls caught up with John Cooper by phone shortly before the final ruling came down. Having butted heads with the UK establishment throughout his career (notably frustrating the ruling classs thirst for blood sport thanks to a fox hunting prohibition act he penned), Cooper says his raison d'tre is representing individuals and groups of individuals against the power of the state. A series of cases brought against the Ministry of Defense on behalf of the families of soldiers who had died in the theater of war due to unconscionably inadequate equipment earned him the honor of being short-listed as Human Rights Barrister of the Year in 2009. More recently, Cooper again gained notoriety in the halls of power when he represented those seeking to open an inquiry into the mysterious death of David Kelly, a Ministry of Defense weapons inspector who had embarrassed his employers by pointing out inconsistencies in their report on Iraqs WMDs (or lack thereof).
Here Cooper gives an account of Occupy Londons David vs. Goliath fight, and outlines the numerous victories they have chalked up in the face of defeat. He also pragmatically comments on the changes hed like to see in the law to fortify the battered and beleaguered rights to assembly and free speech.
Nicole Powers: How did you get involved with Occupy London?
John Cooper: It was on the 15th of October when I learned that the area outside of St Pauls was being occupied. I got an email from an old pupil from my chambers. He said, Weve just occupied the land outside of St Pauls and need your urgent legal advice. My initial thought was this is a joke, its a wind up. I thought it was a rather strange message. But then he emailed me again minutes laterThen I started checking all the social networks, Twitter and so forth, and realized what was actually occurring, so I immediately got back to him.
NP: That was Scrapper Duncan.
JC: 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, Ive had conferences in strange places in my legal practice, but Ive never ever had a conference in a tent outside St. Pauls beforeThe 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.
NP: Right, this is one of these universal issues. Ive been to the occupations in London, Los Angeles, and New York, and health, safety, and public hygiene concerns have been one of the first fallback positions in terms of anti-Occupy posturing.
JC: Its a knee jerk responseThe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which is the act that governs all of this, is being used and abused. Its a decent good act. Its there fundamentally to protect people in the workplace nine times out of ten, as is most health and safety legislation. But its 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.
NP: Right. OccupyLSX has been very responsible with regards to that kind of thing. For example, I know they had a Michelin star chef on site in the camp kitchen at one point.
JC: 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 CathedralI 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 weve 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.
NP: Thats similar to what happened in LA. The first issue was health and safety. But then OccupyLA actually got their kitchen approved. Some sympathetic people from the Health Department pushed the approval through at lightening speed.
JC: Its 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. Pauls. 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. Pauls. So it was a result of the police, my clients would say, that they ended up outside St. Pauls. Obviously God was guiding their hand, Id say with my tongue in cheek.
NP: And Occupy being at St. Pauls forced a wider ecumenical debate about the function of the church and religion in general in society.
JC: 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 Deans office of St. Pauls, 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. Pauls were arguing for immediate legal eviction and a strong arm tactic, whereas others in the Church would say no this isnt 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 Citys 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 Decemberthe Church, having said that they would not get involved with the eviction process, then presented evidence and assisted with witnesses to assist the Corporations 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.
NP: Which is nonsense. Ive been there, Ive seen the site.
JC: Which was evidence that the judge accepted. I said to him, in terms in the hearing, Are you giving evidence with the Churchs 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 wouldnt 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 caseSo, shall we say, in my clients eyes the Church didnt come out of it very well at all.
NP: Not at all, and all along the Church had been flip-flopping. Because they originally invited Occupy in, so the occupiers werent technically trespassing. Then, with an eye on their bank balance since they charge admission to the Cathedral, the Church claimed Occupy was adversely affecting tourism, when actually the opposite was true because the site became a tourist attraction.
JC: There were other examples too. For instance [they claimed] schools were being turned away from trips to St. Pauls. But we presented contrary evidence. Some schools, the more enlightened schools, were actually bringing their kids to see Occupy.
NP: Thats exactly what happened in LA. There would be whole classes of kids that were taken down to visit the camp to learn about democracy in action
JC: 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.
NP: Was that level of scrutiny through infiltration?
JC: No, no, no. It wasnt infiltration. It was simply a large number of City officers were effectively tasked to watch every single move of OccupySo 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.
NP: Right. That raises two points with regards to the occupations in America. In a lot of the city centers where there were occupations, crime actually went down [by 19% in Oakland]. The other thing is theres been problems with agent provocateurs that are not connected with the Occupy movement causing trouble to give it a bad name.
JC: Thats been the concern of my clientsWhat my clients have done when thats 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 clients very firm and sincere beliefs, they were extremely respectful of the court process.
NP: In Los Angeles, we had that very cordial relationship with the police and also City Hall, until it got to the point of the eviction and, to be honest, that was one of the most shocking things Ive ever seen
JC: We have issued already to every single member of Occupy outside St. Pauls a legal fact sheet explaining to them their rights, when and if the police go in. Theyre all fully legaled up to know exactly what they can do and what they cant do, and what the consequences are if they do things.
NP: In America, when police action is occurring, the role of legal observers has been huge.
JC: Well, indeed, we have the legal observers there as well. Weve got their emergency numbers. Ill be one of those on an emergency number ready to advise at short notice.
NP: We have the National Lawyers Guild. Theyve been the guardian angels of the Occupy movement here.
JC: Its not so structured here. Effectively, its a couple of firms of solicitors, which Ive been heading up. Ive effectively been coordinating most of the legal defense this end, so its not so much a legal organization with a name.
NP: Maybe it needs to be.
JC: Lessons to learned. One of the things Ive suggested to Occupy, if ever the dust settles, is Id like to be put in touch with my international legal colleagues so that we can exchange views and experiencesIf you can provide my details to my counterparts in the States, Id like to start a dialogue.
NP: Absolutely. I think, because of what happened with the civil rights movement, America has more of a structured backbone to protest. It has been lying dormant for a long time, but its been there. Whats been incredible, as somewhat of an outside observer being English, is to watch this sleeping infrastructure from the 60s leap into action. So with Occupy in America, a lot of the occupiers needs had already been foreseen because people were aware of the structure of protest. For example, right from day one in Los Angeles, I was there at the beginning of it, we had representatives from the National Lawyers Guild who gave a long talk on exactly what to do if we got arrested and what our rights were.
JC: Thats interesting. I think the experience here has been different. Although there were a number of satellite groups giving advice, it wasnt necessarily structured to this sort of protest. Here, I didnt 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 didnt know how to react to it. The country didnt know how to react to it. In fact, some of the politicians who one wouldve 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.
NP: Thats whats been amazing to me; The Democrats, who are the left leaning party that traditionally supports working class movements like this, havent supported Occupy. And Ive noticed that in England, where youd think Labor would have a natural simpatico, that the political supports not there.
JC: 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 its been proven in the opinion of many that what Occupy has done is actually raised central themes which are at the heart of many peoples lives, people that arent 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, its been a different experience here. Its 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.
NP: Youve been very successful at giving Occupy London a stay of execution.
JC: 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 concernedWhat were 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 its 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 cant 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 Corporations demands to clear the site. And we say that that was not necessary, the judge went too far, steps couldve 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 shouldve removed them in the first place, well thats a political argument now, because technically, in accordance with the Highways Act of 1980, Ive got to tell you however disappointing this is, as a matter of law, he was entitled to remove them. As a matter of morals, thats 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, Id 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 usOne 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. Whats 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 dont 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. Weve proven on behalf of our clients the integrity of the Occupy movement. If you said to me, whats 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.
NP: In America, most of the major occupations have been evicted at this point, so a lot of naysayers are saying Occupy is a flash in the pan, its over, its done with. I dont think theyre understanding that, A, action has died down as a function of the seasonal shift. I think that things are going to very much change in the spring, and in the run up to the November election. And B, that Occupy has already changed the fundamental thought process and political conversation in the US.
JC: That is so important, and thats just what I was saying about what weve achieved in the courts. And, indeed, from what I gather although I emphasize Im 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, its alive and kicking hereThere are other Occupy sites being created in London as well. One of the more imaginative sites that our clients have done is theyve taken over an Old Street magistrates court and theyre holding mock trials of the financial institutions there.
NP: In Oakland, they were actually trying to follow the Bank of Ideas model and take over a building. Oakland officials were so afraid of that happening, that there was one of the biggest police actions that weve seen. They kettled everyone and ended up arresting 400 people. The level of mass arrests I saw via livestream was incredible in the extreme.
JC: Isnt it ironic, you watched footage of the Arab Spring etc., and in the West, we condemn whats 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 its interesting.
NP: Thats the irony, and in America, which is supposedly the land of the free, its bringing up issues of free speech and the right to assembly, and whether we actually really have them anymore.
JC: Oh, indeedOur case, for instance, its been accepted is potentially pushing the boundaries of public protest law into the 21st century. Thats an expression thats been used.
NP: Moving forward, how would you like to see the law defined or changed to accommodate the needs of the establishment and the people that would like to challenge it?
JC: 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 were trying to do in the Occupy legal cases, is try and develop the law where theres 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, its 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.
NP: So, at the moment, by default, corporations can wipe away the peoples right to protest?
JC: Can wipe away the whole rightSo, as a lawyermy ambitions are to extend and protect the Article 10 and 11 rights and extend the threshold that exists before theyre interfered with
NP: As far as this specific case is concerned, what youve been able to do is buy time for Occupy to anticipate the inevitable, develop the satellite occupations, and morph into a movement beyond physical encampments.
JC: Youre absolutely right. The fact that theyve been able to stay there until nearly March, that was above and beyond their expectations. And its given confidence, as you say, to satellite groups. Its also, quite frankly, been a shot across the brows of those that would remove Occupy from other sites. Because they will know if Occupys legal machine trundles into town next time, its not going to be easy.
NP: Thats the amusing situation that's playing out at Occupy Finsbury Square, because Islington Council know they cant afford to take you on.
JC: Well, exactly. You know, Ive been referred to as various things. Sometimes theyre complimentary, sometimes theyre 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.
The eminent barrister and Queen's Counsel has worked tirelessly to keep the protesters in situ since the occupation began on Saturday, October 15, 2011. The battle the occupiers faced was made all the more complicated by the provenance of the site they were camping on, which straddles land owned both by the Church of England and by the City of London Corporation (a unique and ancient semi-private municipal authority which governs Londons square mile financial district).
When the first tent was pitched, even the most optimistic of Occupiers couldnt have predicted the encampment would remain in tact over four months later, so Occupy Londons ultimate eviction from St. Pauls can hardly be considered a defeat. An early attempt to remove protesters was thwarted when the Cathedrals then Canon Chancellor, Giles Fraser, recognized the occupiers right to protest peacefully and asked the police to leave. Frasers actions would ultimately lead to his resignation following some rather public infighting between Church officials with conflicting affiliations and agendas.
With the Church distracted by its own internal disharmony and facing a public relations nightmare if it litigated against members of the very congregation it was supposed to serve, the powers that be at St. Pauls at least publicly stepped aside and let the City of London Corporation spearhead eviction efforts through the courts. Following a hearing before Christmas, the High Court ruled in favor of the City on January 18, 2012. The occupation was granted a stay of execution pending a possible appeal, however, on February 22, three Court of Appeal judges declined to give Occupy London protesters permission to do so, setting the stage for this weeks eviction.
SuicideGirls caught up with John Cooper by phone shortly before the final ruling came down. Having butted heads with the UK establishment throughout his career (notably frustrating the ruling classs thirst for blood sport thanks to a fox hunting prohibition act he penned), Cooper says his raison d'tre is representing individuals and groups of individuals against the power of the state. A series of cases brought against the Ministry of Defense on behalf of the families of soldiers who had died in the theater of war due to unconscionably inadequate equipment earned him the honor of being short-listed as Human Rights Barrister of the Year in 2009. More recently, Cooper again gained notoriety in the halls of power when he represented those seeking to open an inquiry into the mysterious death of David Kelly, a Ministry of Defense weapons inspector who had embarrassed his employers by pointing out inconsistencies in their report on Iraqs WMDs (or lack thereof).
Here Cooper gives an account of Occupy Londons David vs. Goliath fight, and outlines the numerous victories they have chalked up in the face of defeat. He also pragmatically comments on the changes hed like to see in the law to fortify the battered and beleaguered rights to assembly and free speech.
Nicole Powers: How did you get involved with Occupy London?
John Cooper: It was on the 15th of October when I learned that the area outside of St Pauls was being occupied. I got an email from an old pupil from my chambers. He said, Weve just occupied the land outside of St Pauls and need your urgent legal advice. My initial thought was this is a joke, its a wind up. I thought it was a rather strange message. But then he emailed me again minutes laterThen I started checking all the social networks, Twitter and so forth, and realized what was actually occurring, so I immediately got back to him.
NP: That was Scrapper Duncan.
JC: 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, Ive had conferences in strange places in my legal practice, but Ive never ever had a conference in a tent outside St. Pauls beforeThe 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.
NP: Right, this is one of these universal issues. Ive been to the occupations in London, Los Angeles, and New York, and health, safety, and public hygiene concerns have been one of the first fallback positions in terms of anti-Occupy posturing.
JC: Its a knee jerk responseThe Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which is the act that governs all of this, is being used and abused. Its a decent good act. Its there fundamentally to protect people in the workplace nine times out of ten, as is most health and safety legislation. But its 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.
NP: Right. OccupyLSX has been very responsible with regards to that kind of thing. For example, I know they had a Michelin star chef on site in the camp kitchen at one point.
JC: 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 CathedralI 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 weve 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.
NP: Thats similar to what happened in LA. The first issue was health and safety. But then OccupyLA actually got their kitchen approved. Some sympathetic people from the Health Department pushed the approval through at lightening speed.
JC: Its 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. Pauls. 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. Pauls. So it was a result of the police, my clients would say, that they ended up outside St. Pauls. Obviously God was guiding their hand, Id say with my tongue in cheek.
NP: And Occupy being at St. Pauls forced a wider ecumenical debate about the function of the church and religion in general in society.
JC: 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 Deans office of St. Pauls, 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. Pauls were arguing for immediate legal eviction and a strong arm tactic, whereas others in the Church would say no this isnt 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 Citys 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 Decemberthe Church, having said that they would not get involved with the eviction process, then presented evidence and assisted with witnesses to assist the Corporations 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.
NP: Which is nonsense. Ive been there, Ive seen the site.
JC: Which was evidence that the judge accepted. I said to him, in terms in the hearing, Are you giving evidence with the Churchs 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 wouldnt 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 caseSo, shall we say, in my clients eyes the Church didnt come out of it very well at all.
NP: Not at all, and all along the Church had been flip-flopping. Because they originally invited Occupy in, so the occupiers werent technically trespassing. Then, with an eye on their bank balance since they charge admission to the Cathedral, the Church claimed Occupy was adversely affecting tourism, when actually the opposite was true because the site became a tourist attraction.
JC: There were other examples too. For instance [they claimed] schools were being turned away from trips to St. Pauls. But we presented contrary evidence. Some schools, the more enlightened schools, were actually bringing their kids to see Occupy.
NP: Thats exactly what happened in LA. There would be whole classes of kids that were taken down to visit the camp to learn about democracy in action
JC: 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.
NP: Was that level of scrutiny through infiltration?
JC: No, no, no. It wasnt infiltration. It was simply a large number of City officers were effectively tasked to watch every single move of OccupySo 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.
NP: Right. That raises two points with regards to the occupations in America. In a lot of the city centers where there were occupations, crime actually went down [by 19% in Oakland]. The other thing is theres been problems with agent provocateurs that are not connected with the Occupy movement causing trouble to give it a bad name.
JC: Thats been the concern of my clientsWhat my clients have done when thats 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 clients very firm and sincere beliefs, they were extremely respectful of the court process.
NP: In Los Angeles, we had that very cordial relationship with the police and also City Hall, until it got to the point of the eviction and, to be honest, that was one of the most shocking things Ive ever seen
JC: We have issued already to every single member of Occupy outside St. Pauls a legal fact sheet explaining to them their rights, when and if the police go in. Theyre all fully legaled up to know exactly what they can do and what they cant do, and what the consequences are if they do things.
NP: In America, when police action is occurring, the role of legal observers has been huge.
JC: Well, indeed, we have the legal observers there as well. Weve got their emergency numbers. Ill be one of those on an emergency number ready to advise at short notice.
NP: We have the National Lawyers Guild. Theyve been the guardian angels of the Occupy movement here.
JC: Its not so structured here. Effectively, its a couple of firms of solicitors, which Ive been heading up. Ive effectively been coordinating most of the legal defense this end, so its not so much a legal organization with a name.
NP: Maybe it needs to be.
JC: Lessons to learned. One of the things Ive suggested to Occupy, if ever the dust settles, is Id like to be put in touch with my international legal colleagues so that we can exchange views and experiencesIf you can provide my details to my counterparts in the States, Id like to start a dialogue.
NP: Absolutely. I think, because of what happened with the civil rights movement, America has more of a structured backbone to protest. It has been lying dormant for a long time, but its been there. Whats been incredible, as somewhat of an outside observer being English, is to watch this sleeping infrastructure from the 60s leap into action. So with Occupy in America, a lot of the occupiers needs had already been foreseen because people were aware of the structure of protest. For example, right from day one in Los Angeles, I was there at the beginning of it, we had representatives from the National Lawyers Guild who gave a long talk on exactly what to do if we got arrested and what our rights were.
JC: Thats interesting. I think the experience here has been different. Although there were a number of satellite groups giving advice, it wasnt necessarily structured to this sort of protest. Here, I didnt 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 didnt know how to react to it. The country didnt know how to react to it. In fact, some of the politicians who one wouldve 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.
NP: Thats whats been amazing to me; The Democrats, who are the left leaning party that traditionally supports working class movements like this, havent supported Occupy. And Ive noticed that in England, where youd think Labor would have a natural simpatico, that the political supports not there.
JC: 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 its been proven in the opinion of many that what Occupy has done is actually raised central themes which are at the heart of many peoples lives, people that arent 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, its been a different experience here. Its 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.
NP: Youve been very successful at giving Occupy London a stay of execution.
JC: 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 concernedWhat were 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 its 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 cant 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 Corporations demands to clear the site. And we say that that was not necessary, the judge went too far, steps couldve 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 shouldve removed them in the first place, well thats a political argument now, because technically, in accordance with the Highways Act of 1980, Ive got to tell you however disappointing this is, as a matter of law, he was entitled to remove them. As a matter of morals, thats 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, Id 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 usOne 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. Whats 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 dont 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. Weve proven on behalf of our clients the integrity of the Occupy movement. If you said to me, whats 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.
NP: In America, most of the major occupations have been evicted at this point, so a lot of naysayers are saying Occupy is a flash in the pan, its over, its done with. I dont think theyre understanding that, A, action has died down as a function of the seasonal shift. I think that things are going to very much change in the spring, and in the run up to the November election. And B, that Occupy has already changed the fundamental thought process and political conversation in the US.
JC: That is so important, and thats just what I was saying about what weve achieved in the courts. And, indeed, from what I gather although I emphasize Im 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, its alive and kicking hereThere are other Occupy sites being created in London as well. One of the more imaginative sites that our clients have done is theyve taken over an Old Street magistrates court and theyre holding mock trials of the financial institutions there.
NP: In Oakland, they were actually trying to follow the Bank of Ideas model and take over a building. Oakland officials were so afraid of that happening, that there was one of the biggest police actions that weve seen. They kettled everyone and ended up arresting 400 people. The level of mass arrests I saw via livestream was incredible in the extreme.
JC: Isnt it ironic, you watched footage of the Arab Spring etc., and in the West, we condemn whats 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 its interesting.
NP: Thats the irony, and in America, which is supposedly the land of the free, its bringing up issues of free speech and the right to assembly, and whether we actually really have them anymore.
JC: Oh, indeedOur case, for instance, its been accepted is potentially pushing the boundaries of public protest law into the 21st century. Thats an expression thats been used.
NP: Moving forward, how would you like to see the law defined or changed to accommodate the needs of the establishment and the people that would like to challenge it?
JC: 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 were trying to do in the Occupy legal cases, is try and develop the law where theres 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, its 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.
NP: So, at the moment, by default, corporations can wipe away the peoples right to protest?
JC: Can wipe away the whole rightSo, as a lawyermy ambitions are to extend and protect the Article 10 and 11 rights and extend the threshold that exists before theyre interfered with
NP: As far as this specific case is concerned, what youve been able to do is buy time for Occupy to anticipate the inevitable, develop the satellite occupations, and morph into a movement beyond physical encampments.
JC: Youre absolutely right. The fact that theyve been able to stay there until nearly March, that was above and beyond their expectations. And its given confidence, as you say, to satellite groups. Its also, quite frankly, been a shot across the brows of those that would remove Occupy from other sites. Because they will know if Occupys legal machine trundles into town next time, its not going to be easy.
NP: Thats the amusing situation that's playing out at Occupy Finsbury Square, because Islington Council know they cant afford to take you on.
JC: Well, exactly. You know, Ive been referred to as various things. Sometimes theyre complimentary, sometimes theyre 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.