Subscriptions
Read Our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
A republican campaigner has received a settlement from Thames Valley Police following an unlawful arrest protesting the monarchy in September 2022.
Symon Hill, at the time campaigns lead at the Peace Pledge Union, was charged under the Public Order Act 1986 after shouting “who elected him?” when his path home was blocked by the Proclamation of King Charles in Oxford.
Security officers at the event asked him not to express his opinion in a public space – and then soon after the police swooped in and arrested him under broad anti-protest laws.
Civil rights groups Liberty provided legal support throughout the three year process to secure this settlement, which amounts to just £2,500. The settlement amount was significantly lower than the £15,000 originally sought by Liberty’s lawyers.
Thames Valley Police has now “grudgingly acknowledged” that Hill should not have been arrested, though they didn’t formally apologise, the peace activist told Byline Times.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
During the arrest, Hill says he was given contradictory information about the legal grounds for his detention – first told it was under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, then later the Public Order Act 1986. It makes causing “harassment, alarm or distress” a criminal offence.
“I asked the police officer with me under what law I’d been arrested. He said he didn’t know, and that the sergeant who had arrested me would know. Every police officer who’s considered an arrest should know the grounds for the arrest.
“Anybody should be able to know at any point why they’ve been arrested. Otherwise, it’s an arbitrary arrest. If we’re going to have a rule of law, that means you have to have clear grounds for arrest,” Hill said.
Afterwards, Hill says he was also falsely accused by the force of assaulting a security guard, though police had footage showing this didn’t occur.
The Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges two weeks after they were formally filed in December 2022.
Hill believes this case highlights wider systemic problems regarding policing, protest rights, and free expression in the UK.
Policing of Pro-Palestine Protests is ‘Racist and Islamophobic’ and Driven By Media and Government Pressure, Report Warns
Policing was driven by politicians and media furore, with pressure on police to ‘do more’ resulting in confused and inconsistent decision-making, Netpol argues
Speaking to Byline Times, the peace campaigner and university chaplain vented concerns that police officers aren’t properly trained on laws relating to protest and free speech.
Hill said the settlement was “better than a slap in the face with a wet fish.”
“Given that I’m on a part-time income at the moment, it does make a bit of difference in terms of day-to-day finances, but it’s not life-changing.”
He added: “I’m very aware that most people who are unlawfully arrested or otherwise mistreated by the police aren’t able to take legal action or even to get any media attention for what’s happened, and that’s one of the reasons that motivated me to do this, because I don’t think it’s just about me. It’s about everybody’s right to speak up and assert their rights.”
And he criticised the recent spate of anti-protest laws pushed through Parliament before the 2023 coronation, which were used to arrest other republican campaigners including Republic campaign leader Graham Smith.
Hill argues that the political left needs to “reclaim the free speech cause” from right-wing figures who he believes have co-opted it.
Despite some unexpected support from a handful of right-wing figures such as Piers Morgan following his arrest, Hill received limited backing from formal “free speech” organisations.
