Ulez protesters cleared of harassing Sadiq Khan
Four activists were charged over a demonstration named 'Khanage at Khan's' and subsequently found guilty after a trial at Westminster magistrates' court.
The Telegraph can reveal they have now been cleared of harassment after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) received 'new information' which undermined evidence in its case.
The protest was organised last April in response to the Mayor's controversial ultra-low emission zone [Ulez] expansion to the outer boroughs of London.
Motorists with non-compliant polluting vehicles must pay £12.50 a day to drive across all London boroughs.
Activists who have campaigned against Ulez have said the charge is having an impact on their commutes to work and even keeping some families apart.
A court heard the protest took place around 328ft (100m) from Sir Sadiq's home in Tooting, south London, according to the BBC.
All four entering not guilty pleas – Nicholas Arlett, 74, West Wickham, Martin Whitehead, 62, Beckhenham, Alison Young, 51, from Windsor and Lloyd Dunsford, 65, from Bexleyheath – were convicted of 'harassment of a person in his home' following a trial in December.
However, shortly after some of the group began the process of appealing their convictions, the CPS confirmed it would not be contesting an appeal.
As a result all four convictions were quashed by Judge Peter Lodder KC on May 15 at Kingston Crown Court.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Mr Whitehead, said: 'I'm not a serial protester – this is the only thing I've ever protested about – Ulez.'
The plasterer said that shortly after the trial he felt he had to 'explain himself' to those who had read about his conviction in the media.
'A lot of the newspapers got hold of the stories when we were convicted and that hurt a lot as well because it was widely publicised,' he said.
'We were made to look like we were horrible people and that got to me as well because all my neighbours saw it and people I worked for saw it – I had to explain myself.'
Reflecting on the day he found out his conviction had been quashed, Mr Whitehead said: 'I'm obviously over the moon that it's over and done with… we weren't expecting it at all – I mean, I'm a grown man of 62, but I cried.'
A BBC report of the trial stated that the Mayor was not thought to have been in his house during the protest, but District Judge Daniel Sternberg said neighbours on the street were 'disrupted in their private lives whilst in their homes'.
The judge also reportedly said the demonstration was loud and featured amplified music, including the theme tune to the television series The Bill, and that there was 'offensive language'.
He said he was satisfied that the protesters 'knew, or ought to have known, that their presence was likely to cause alarm or distress to Sadiq Khan'.
Mr Whitehead, Ms Young and Mr Dunsford were each fined £500, with a victim surcharge of £200.
Mr Arlett had a higher level of culpability than the others and was fined £750, along with a £300 victim surcharge.
However, now the groups' convictions have been quashed, any full or partial payments made will be repaid.
The victim surcharge is used to support victims of crime through the Victim and Witness General Fund – which means the money paid in this case will not go to Sir Sadiq himself.
A CPS spokesperson told The Telegraph: 'We have a duty to keep every case under continuous review and after receiving new information which undermined the evidence in our case, we did not contest the defendants' right to appeal their conviction.'
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the decision was down to a 'procedural issue' rather than any problems with the 'substance of the evidence'.
They said they were unable to provide further details.
Lawyer Luke Gittos, who was representing two of the protesters at the time the convictions were quashed, said it was very rare for convictions to be quashed at this stage.
Mr Gittos, whose firm did not represent any of the group during the trial, said: 'It's extremely rare – it's an implicit concession that the convictions were wrongly obtained and that happens very rarely.'
The Telegraph approached representatives of Sir Sadiq for a comment but they did not provide one.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: For Coldplay concert couple, Canadian harassment law would top privacy concerns
If you want to know how far harassment protections have expanded in Canadian workplace law today, look no further than the Coldplay concert debacle. While most observers seem to agree that the two colleagues caught canoodling at a Boston Coldplay concert — the chief executive and head of HR for U.S. tech company Astronomer — have been appropriately (and very publicly) shamed, there are divisions on the question of professional punishment and accountability. I have read arguments suggesting that the relationship, while extramarital, was between two consenting adults, and therefore not deserving of reprimand or termination, or perhaps even investigation. Or that the company had no interest in getting involved, since there was no evidence of coercion or complaints of favouritism or violation of company policies. None of this is reflective of Canadian law today. First, all potential harassment must be investigated, whether there is a complaint or not. The fact that a relationship between a superior or subordinate is ostensibly 'consensual' does not end the issue legally. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted last month in a case involving Metrolinx: 'There are many reasons why a victim of harassment might choose not to pursue an official complaint, none of which erase the harassing behaviour or the employer's obligation to investigate it to protect the workplace from a hostile or demeaning environment. … (A lack of complaint) does not relieve an employer of its statutory duty (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of each province) to conduct an investigation' into harassment. The Court of Appeal in that case made clear that the obligation of an employer to investigate potential harassment is not just owed to the potential victim but to all employees in that workplace. But does the apparent affair between the CEO and HR head qualify as harassment, which therefore must be investigated? In 2001, there was a groundbreaking decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simpson v. Consumers Association of Canada, in which the court made clear that there should be no assumption that a relationship is consensual even if it might appear so. Instead, an evaluation of the imbalance of power must occur to see if there may be factors affecting the individual's consent (scared of losing job, afraid of reprisal, etc.). 'It is an error to ignore the supervisory role of the alleged harasser and to treat him as one of the employees. … Mr. Simpson may well have viewed all of his conduct as consensual and therefore as welcome. Because of the power imbalance in an employee's relationship with a supervisor, and the perceived consequences to objecting to a supervisor's behaviour, particularly when the behaviour is not directed specifically at that employee … an employee may go along with the conduct. In those circumstances, the employee will be effectively consenting to unwelcome conduct because she feels constrained from objecting' This 25-year-old case highlighted that claims of consensual conduct will be closely examined when the individual involved holds a position of power. It is important to monitor relationships involving power differentials, as they give rise to legal risk. The court noted that anyone in a position of authority — and Andy Byron, the CEO in the Coldplay imbroglio would no doubt qualify — 'owes duties to their employer … to protect employees from harassing behaviour and to safeguard the employer from potential civil liability arising from such complaints. Any CEO consorting with an employee risks that employee later saying that they only succumbed to the CEO's advances to protect their job. In the Simpson case, the court also noted it is 'a workplace reality that it is difficult for staff to disapprove of the conduct of a superior without feeling that their jobs may thereby be in jeopardy.' It further stated that Simpson 'failed to properly consider whether the reason Ms. X felt that she was obliged to go along with his behaviour was to ensure that she retained her job, which she needed, and to be part of Mr. Simpson's 'inner circle.' Perhaps most important and relevant to the Andy Byron affair, the court said that a having a relationship with a subordinate exposes the employer to the risk of civil suits, and that it the job of senior employees to ensure an employer carries out its duties to its workers, shareholders and the public so that the company is protected. 'If the supervisor creates the problem,' the court said, 'he is in breach of that duty.' The suggestion that privacy concerns prevail is also inconsistent with the development of sexual harassment law in this country. Privacy rights are generally dramatically overstated: in other words, in general, privacy rights have little protection under our law and they fall to the wayside next to an employer's duty to stop and investigate potential harassment in their workplace. There is a common misconception that employers must find that a relationship lacked consent or that there was differential treatment before management can act. This assumes that the subordinate employee will come forward willingly, which, as noted above, may not occur. Employers are obliged to deal with potential harassment prior to any escalation by complaining employees. Of course, if policies are violated, such as one prohibiting superior-subordinate relationships, which I encourage employers to adopt — or at least policies requiring disclosure of such relationships — the case against the violator is clearer. But superior-subordinate relationships are always problematic, even in the absence of such policies. Howard Levitt: How the Coldplay concert affair would have played out in Canada Howard Levitt: Even the most desultory employee can find favour with the courts In short, in Canada, employers cannot view relationships between superiors and subordinates with equanimity, nor as private affairs. They must investigate from the standpoint that any such relationship may be inherently coercive and, in any event, damaging to the organization and come with substantial liability risks. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Man charged with murder after great-grandparents killed in St Helens house fire
A man has been charged with murder after two great-grandparents died following an arson attack on their home in St Helens last week. Eric Greener, 77, and Sheila Jackson, 83, died after the fire in Merseyside in the early hours of 15 July. Police said Lee Owens, 46, of no fixed address, was charged with two counts of murder and arson with intent to endanger life on Friday. He has been remanded in custody and is to appear at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Saturday. Merseyside Police said a 31-year-old man from St Helens, who was arrested on suspicion of murder, remains on conditional bail. The force also said an accelerant was used to start the fire on South John Street, where Mr Greener and Ms Shelia had lived for 15 years. The pair were rescued from their home and taken to hospital after emergency services were called at 12.40am. Read more from Sky News: Mr Greener died on the evening of 16 July, while Ms Jackson died the next morning. In a tribute released on Thursday, the victims' family said they were "the life and soul of the party" and would "forever be devastatingly missed but eternally loved".
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine anti-corruption chief says his agency faces 'dirty information campaign'
By Dan Peleschuk KYIV (Reuters) -Ukraine's top anti-corruption investigator said on Friday that he did not expect attempts to derail his agency's work to end, despite an abrupt U-turn by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on curbing their independence that fuelled rare wartime protests. Semen Kryvonos, director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), said he was taken aback by attempts this week to curtail his agency's fight against graft but did not name those who may have been behind the legislation. "Everyone united around the idea of ruining our independence," Kryvonos told Reuters in an interview in Kyiv, referring to parliament passing the controversial measures. "This was a shock for me - how much demand had built up to destroy us." He spoke a day after Zelenskiy sought to defuse tensions by submitting legislation restoring the independence of NABU and its sister agency, the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). Thousands of protesters took part in protests in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities this week after lawmakers fast-tracked a bill granting a Zelenskiy-appointed general prosecutor power over the two bodies. The move had also threatened Kyiv's ties with the European Union and Western donors which have been a critical source of financial and military support during Russia's war in Ukraine. Kryvonos applauded Zelenskiy's reversal, but said NABU and SAPO remain a high-priority target for vested interests aiming to stymie their closely watched efforts to clean up. Parliament will consider Zelenskiy's new bill in a special session next week. But Kryvonos worries corrupt actors will step up a "dirty information campaign" already being waged against NABU on widely read anonymous Telegram channels, casting the agency as slow or ineffective. He did not identify the exact sources of resistance to his agency's work, saying only that they are "various representatives of the government, various financial groups". "Everyone who is offended by NABU and SAPO will be pushing out this message," Kryvonos said. 'SYSTEMIC WORK' AND THREATS Since Russia's February 2022 invasion, Ukraine has stepped up a campaign to eradicate the pervasive graft that has plagued its political culture for decades. Stamping out corruption is both critical to Kyiv's bid to join the EU and its effort to erase a legacy of autocracy and Russian rule. NABU and SAPO, launched with Western support after a 2014 revolution toppled a pro-Russian president, have levelled charges against lawmakers and senior government officials. In recent months, Kryvonos's agency has uncovered huge real estate schemes in the capital Kyiv and accused a then deputy prime minister of taking a $345,000 kickback. Kryvonos suggested such efforts had led to a sweeping crackdown this week that paved the way for the rollback of NABU's and SAPO's powers. Two NABU officials were arrested for suspected ties to Russia and nearly 20 other agency employees searched over lesser alleged infractions in a campaign critics said went too far. "All of this was a result of systemic work by NABU and SAPO, especially over the past half-year," he said, adding that he had also received "a huge amount" of threats. Despite winning a hard-fought victory this week, he said resistance was still widespread enough across the political landscape to pose a serious challenge. He cited the controversial law that had been supported by most of Zelenskiy's political party as well as opposition lawmakers and those associated with former pro-Russian factions. Political elites, Kryvonos said, "need to stop considering us as accept us as an important part of state institutions." Solve the daily Crossword
