By email only

Matthew Varnham
Director
Legal Observers
myemail@gmail.com
Adrian Leppard
Commissioner
City of London Police
theiremail
@cityoflondon.police.uk
CC.
Michael Cogher
, Comptroller and City Solicitor,
Occupy London
7 September 2015
Dear Commissioner Leppard,
Clarification and Apology regarding Occupy London
I write following the disclosure of information which shows Occupy London on a
slide with images depicting the aftermath of terrorist attacks carried out by the
IRA and Al-Qaida. The slide is part of a presentation targeted at nursery and
school staff as part of the Project Fawn. Under the header
History in City of
Terrorism and Domestic Issues
it classes Occupy London as an example of
Domestic Extremism.
Your Community Engagement Update to the Police Committee dated 20th May
1
2015 classes Project Fawn as Counter Terrorism Work and part of the City of
Londons engagement in the Governments CONTEST Counter Terrorism Strategy.
Your Update indicates the objective of Project Fawn is to assist in the assessment
of risk of pupils being drawn into terrorism, including support for the extremist
ideas that are part of terrorist ideology.
1

Pol 26/15
http://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s50736/Pol_26-15_Police%20Committee%20Co
mmunity%20Engagement%20Update%20Report%20May%202015.pdf

Following the release of the slide through an FOIA Request made by the Guardian,
a spokesman for the City of London Police released a statement. This statement
2
was published by the Guardian in their coverage of the same, and is included;
The City of London police engages with a range of audiences on topics
including crime, terrorism, personal safety and online protection in order to
protect and educate people. The presentations are delivered alongside
officers from community policing, as well as representatives from the City
of London Corporation.
A section of the presentation mentions protest groups. This is not an
attempt to label them as terrorists, but an opportunity to discuss other
policing issues that could affect educational establishments in the Square
Mile.
The Occupy Movement
Occupy London established a tent city on public land besides St Pauls Cathedral
in October 2011 after being rebuffed from their intended location, Paternoster
Square, by the Police. The encampment remained until the end of February 2012.
During this time the protest camp attracted significant public and media interest.
At its height, the movement had occupations in hundreds of cities across the
world and was It brought people together, many of whom had no previous
experience with protest, giving them a physical space to discuss their views on
the causes and potential solutions to an economic and democratic crisis.
In relation to the occupation, the High Court accepted
...the significance of the
causes the defendants promote, [and] the sincerity and passion with which they
3
are doing this. identifying the issues the movement raise to include
the crisis
or perceived crisis of capitalism, and of the banking industry, and the inability
or perceived inability of traditional democratic institutions to cope with many of
the world's most pressing problems. They encompass climate change, social and
economic injustice, the iniquitous use of tax havens, the culpability of western
governments in a number of conflicts, and many more issues besides. All of these
4
topics, clearly, are of very great political importance.
There was no suggestion by the Court that the views expressed by the protesters
extremist in nature, or that the protest itself presented a threat to national
security. I believe the issues being discussed were of great interest to the
protesters and of wider public interest more generally.

ttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/19/occupy-london-counter-terrorism-presentation-al-qaida
h
Paragraph 155
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/34.html
4
Ibid.
3

Implications of Domestic Extremism Classification - The Joint Threat

Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG)
The slide categorises the Occupy London protesters as an example of domestic
extremism. This follows similar categorisation of Occupy London as domestic
extremists in the City of London Police December 2011
Terrorism/Extremism
5
Update for the City of London Business Community
.
The Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, part of GCHQ who work with the
Police, work to monitor domestic extremists. JTRIG can be tasked by external
organisations, such as the police, who are required to provide JTRIG with
6
expected outcomes of an operation when tasking.
The JTRIG work to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, disrupt, delay,
7
deny, denigrate/degrade and deter. Their focus on domestic extremists is
through Human Intelligence with an extensive variety of tactics including the use
8
of aliases and the denial of telephone and computer services.
Resolution
We live in a world where terrorism is a real and ever present threat. I do not seek
to downplay the unenviable task you have of ensuring those who live, work and
indeed protest within the City of London are kept safe. There is a difference,
however, between those who wish to engage in acts of terror and those who wish
to highlight it through peaceful protest.
As a public body the City of London Police, alongside the City of London
Corporation, have a duty to facilitate peaceful protest. It is a balancing act where
the Police are expected to weigh up competing interests between those who have
a right to express an opinion and those who are inconvenienced by that form of
expression. I appreciate the balancing act is often challenging but, following the
publication of CPS guidelines, it has been determined and reaffirmed by the
9
Courts that peaceful protesters should be facilitated and not prosecuted. The
recent swathe of acquittals for peaceful protest during the Occupy movements
10
most recent iteration, Occupy Democracy, demonstrates this point.
I note that the City of London Police held off clearing the Occupy London protest
at the point it first established in 2011 instead deferring to the judgement of the
5

Appendix 1
Paragraph 1.11.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/jun/behavioural-science-support-for-jtrigs-effects.pdf
7
Ibid. Paragraph 2.3
8
Ibid. Paragraph 2.5
9
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_protests/

10

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/occupy-democracy-protester-donnachadh-mccarthy
-assault-charge-dismissed

Courts. In its judgement the Court reaffirmed the need for interference with the
right to freedom of assembly and expression to be
rationally connected to one of
the legitimate aims specified in Articles 10(2) and 11(2)
requiring it to be

convincingly demonstrated that interference meets a pressing social need and

is proportionate
concluding
action will not be proportionate unless it is the least
intrusive means necessary to meet the aim to apply a blanket policy will not
normally be proportionate.
Crucially the Court required proportionality reviews to
11
be
decided by the courts. determined on the facts of the individual case.

It is greatly concerning that references to Occupy London within initiatives such

as Project Fawn, in the context of the Governments Counter Terrorism strategy
and following developments in police dispersal powers, help propagate an
impression of occupations and other forms of nonviolent direct action as unlawful
and extremist in nature.
You previously came under fire when the City Police included Occupy London in
their December 2011
Terrorism/Extremism Update for the City of London
12
Business Community
. Following a letter to you by Dr Rizwaan Sabir your Office
published on the Force website a response suggesting the inclusion of Occupy
London on the Update was a mistake, going on to say
...it was never our
intention to suggest that we view the Occupy Movement as being terrorist or
extremist in nature

I fear the comments made by a spokesman for the City of London police, where
he suggests the mention of protest groups ...is not an attempt to label them as
terrorists, do not go far enough to address associations that are likely to be
made by those who see the presentation. In this instance it does seem your
intention to have Occupy London categorised as extremists. In light of recent
insights into the work of the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), I
worry that your classification of the Occupy movement as domestic extremists
has meant they will have become targets of the JTRIG, perhaps through your
tasking of GCHQ to monitor them.
Through the City of London Corporations reclassification of Paternoster Square as
13
a Walkway , and through dispersal powers afforded to your Inspectors through
14
Section 35 Antisocial Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014 , you have a variety
of ways to prevent Occupy-type protests from establishing in future. These
developments inform the direction we seem to be going, with increasing
intolerance towards such types of peaceful protest. It is with this in mind that I
fear the City of London Police, if their classification of Occupy London as domestic

11
12

Paragraph 99
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/34.html
Appendix 1

13

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/police-get-new-power-to-clear-paternoster-square-of-prote
sters-with-no-order-from-court-9655850.html
14
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/3/enacted

extremists is to do with putting them within the remit of JTRIG, are working to
undermine legitimate and resolutely peaceful protesters from engaging in their
right to protest. I have no doubt that this would be unlawful.
For example, I am aware that telephone and computer disruption was faced by
some of those involved in Occupy London in 2011/2012 during and after the time
the protest was in situ at St Pauls Churchyard.
I ask that you;
1. Remove the image of Occupy London from the slide.
2. Publish an apology to Occupy London the City of London Police website.
3. Provide details of the criteria you use to categorise individuals / groups as
domestic extremists and give a definition of domestic extremism.
4. Clarify whether the City of London Police have worked with the Joint Threat
Research Intelligence Unit, GCHQ more broadly or the Security Services
(MI5) at any point in relation to the Occupy movement.
5. If the answer to Q4. is yes, did the City of London Police task JTRIG?
6. If the answer to Q5. is yes, what did you specify as the expected outcome
of the operation?
As a matter of courtesy, I would like to inform you that a copy of this letter along
with your response, which I look forward to receiving, will be uploaded to the
internet.
Yours Sincerely

Matthew Varnham

Appendix 1