Sunak backs down to Rowley over pro-Palestine march
Tensions are running high between the Met and central government after Rishi Sunak summoned chief commissioner Mark Rowley for an emergency meeting this afternoon, following his decision to allow a pro-Palestinian demonstration to go ahead on Armistice Day.
Despite pressure from government to use his powers to block the demo, Rowley insists: “The laws created by parliament are clear. There is no absolute power to ban protest.”
Following their talks, Sunak accepted that the protest will go ahead. This evening, he issued a statement saying: “Freedom is the right to peacefully protest. And the test of that freedom is whether our commitment to it can survive the discomfort and frustration of those who seek to use it, even if we disagree with them.”
Yet earlier in the day, Sunak – who has described the timing of the demo as “provocative and disrespectful” – appeared keen to distance himself from Rowley, telling reporters he would hold the police chief “accountable” for his decision.
It’s not the only reason the policing of protests is coming under scrutiny today. A row has also broken out after the Met accused Just Stop Oil activists of blocking an ambulance with “blue lights on” as it tried to make its way through their environmental demonstration on Waterloo bridge. At least 40 activists have been charged with obstruction of the highway.
What powers does the police actually have to entirely stop a protest from going ahead?
Under section 13 of the Public Order Act, a chief constable can ask the home secretary to ban a march in order to avoid serious public disorder.
Yet Sir Mark has made clear that Saturday’s protest does not meet the threshold test for public disorder that would justify the request for a ban: “The use of this power is incredibly rare and must be based on intelligence which suggests there will be a real threat of serious disorder and no other way for police to manage the event.”
This threshold has only been met once in the last decade, in 2012, when Theresa May banned an English Defence League rally in London.
On Monday, the Met publicly appealed to organisers of the pro-Palestine march to postpone the event. But organisers have refused to do so, pointing out the planned route does not go past the Cenotaph war memorial and the march is due to begin at 12:45 after a two-minute’s silence has been held. Following this failed plea, Rowley has vowed to make sure that events around the Cenotaph are “completely protected”.
The government does have the ultimate authority to force the police’s hand. Some groups, such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism, have urged the home secretary to use section 40 of the Police Act 1996 – a power used when a government decides a police force is failing to discharge its duties, and overrules its decision.
While this would be humiliating for the Met, there’s a high bar to proving a police force is incompetent, meaning it’s unsurprising the government has’t dared to pursue such a route. Instead, the episode looks set to be humiliating for the home secretary instead.
Sir Mark hasn’t held back in publicly criticising Suella Braverman’s description of the protests as “hate marches.” When asked if he agreed with her assessment, Rowley replied: “I wouldn’t use one phrase to characterise 100,000 people.”
Rowley had also stressed the importance of an “independent police service…focused simply on the law and the facts in front of us.”
A year on from the fallout which led to Cressida Dick’s departure, tensions between Met and central government show no sign of dissipating.
Her successor has shown he isn’t afraid to publicly undermine ministers. And the leader of the opposition appears keen to exploit these tensions. “Remembrance events must be respected. Full stop.” said Keir Starmer today. “But the person the PM needs to hold accountable is his Home Secretary. Picking a fight with the police instead of working with them is cowardice.”
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life