To succeed, an appeal would have to show that the injunction and actions taken by the City of London were disproportionate.
On the day it was announced that British unemployment had risen to close to 2.7 million people, a high court judge ruled that Occupy London protesters must dismantle their encampment on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral in the city’s center. The protesters, who expressed both defiance and resolve, were given seven days to appeal the decision. —ARK
Mr Justice Lindblom allowed the protesters to appeal to the court of appeal and gave them seven days to do so—eviction would begin if they did not appeal by next Friday, 27 January, at 4pm. John Cooper QC, speaking for the protesters outside the court after the ruling, said they would appeal tomorrow. “Onwards and upwards for Occupy,” said Tammy Samede, the principal named defendant in the case.
Lindblom said he ruled in favour of the City because of the extent and duration of the objection of the highway at St Paul’s, and the public nuisance it caused; the effect on worshippers and visitors; the private nuisance to the church; and the “planning harm”. Each of these things individually would be grounds to evict the protesters, he said—taken together they made up “an unusually persuasive case”. Any interference with the protesters’ rights in evicting them was “entirely lawful and justified”, as well as necessary and proportionate.