Key points in the written evidence include: * Procedures prior to the 13 March vigil show that law on public assembly during the COVID19 pandemic was subject to misinterpretation suggesting no public gatherings were permissible, rather than the necessity to read regulations through the primary provisions of the Human Rights Act in reaching individualised decisions on a case-by-case basis.* Human Rights case law emphasises the importance in democracies of tolerance of non-violent gatherings, including spontaneous gatherings which form an immediate response to circumstances.* As key parties to decision on public assembly (e.g. conditions, prior advice on lawfulness, enforcement), police have a conflict of interest in cases of assembly protesting against police or otherwise calling them to account.* At Clapham Common a protest emerged after the vigil (somewhere after 1800hrs). Police took a decision on enforcement by 1830 hrs. This does not suggest protestors were given sufficient time to manifest their views and express solidarity.* Under principles of horizontal responsiveness, any extension of police powers in relation to public assembly should require an extension and strengthening of powers of other actors to scrutinise police decision making, to hold decision makers to account, and to act as a check against a ‘chilling effect’ of decisions on public participation in protest.
Written evidence to All Party Parliamentary Group for Democracy and Constitution Inquiry into Respect for the Constitutional Rights to Free Expression at the Clapham Common Vigil on 13 March and the Bristol Protests in March 2021