Tents scandal: Police admit they acted ‘unlawfully' in eviction
Met apologises for evicting rough sleeper from outside University College London Hospital
Thursday, 18th January — By Frankie Lister-Fell
Anthony Sinclair speaking at our community meeting
THE Metropolitan Police has apologised and said its officers acted unlawfully in the eviction of rough sleepers living in tents outside University College Hospital.
Following the removal of several people in November as requested by UCLH, Anthony Sinclair, one of the men who was evicted, launched a legal challenge against the police last month with human rights organisation Liberty. He was supported by Streets Kitchen.
Mr Sinclair had been living in a tent outside the hospital in Huntley Street for several months when he was issued a dispersal notice by officers and told to leave, due to claims of antisocial behaviour at the site. He refused and was arrested.
Mr Sinclair told the New Journal: “I’m really happy that I’ve won and also that people will get to know a bit more about homeless people.
“When I put up this fight and got arrested it had an effect on the other guys, they wanted to stand their ground too. I remember saying to them don’t let the police push you around. You have to put up a bit of a fight otherwise it will happen again. I’ll keep fighting. I’m fighting till my dying breath for my rights.
“The good thing is the police are not going to do the same again, hopefully.”
Anthony by his tent
Speaking about the response to the tent evictions, he said: “I didn’t think anyone cared about the homeless apart from the volunteers. It really did bring tears to my eyes.”
On Tuesday, the Met Commissioner accepted the arrest was unlawful and that officers acted unlawfully when they authorised a dispersal order banning Mr Sinclair from the area, which stretched from Euston Road to High Holborn, for 48 hours.
They also accepted that officers unlawfully “interfered” with Mr Sinclair’s right to respect for his private and family life, under the Human Rights Act. The force has now said it will pay him compensation for being unlawfully detained.
Mr Sinclair threatened legal action against the police on the grounds that dispersal orders should not prevent people from access- ing the place where they live – in this case, his tent.
Police outside UCLH
Campaign group Liberty said that the actions of the police breached their client’s human rights and put him and numerous other homeless people at risk of harm. Lana Adamou, a human rights lawyer at Liberty, said: “This government is criminalising poverty and homelessness, and police are misusing powers they have been given such as dispersal orders as a short-term fix to remove people from an area, instead of providing support or dealing with the root causes of these issues.
“We’re glad to see the police admit that their officers should not have treated our client or the other people affected in this way and that our client’s rights were breached, and we welcome the commissioner’s apology. This sends a clear message that dispersal orders should not be used against people living on the streets in this way.”
Elodie Berland, Streets Kitchen co-ordinator, said: “This was not an isolated incident where powers were used unlawfully to disperse people and destroy their possessions. This is sadly something we witness regularly. The Met’s acknowledgment that they indeed acted unlawfully highlights the need to always be observant and resist such cruel acts whenever they occur anywhere.
“Being homeless is not a crime – the fact that it exists should be.”
The case will affect how officers police people living on the streets in the future.
In a letter from police lawyers seen by the New Journal, the law firm DWF states that the police could still use Section 35 dispersal orders on homeless people camping in an area depending on “specific factual circumstances”.
But the commissioner accepts that in the future there should be “more consideration” given to whether the order would affect people from accessing where they are living.
The letter said: “In many instances, it may be that an alternative course of action is more appropriate.
“The [Met] will be taking actions to ensure that in future, proper consideration is given to whether the Part 3 dispersals powers are appropriate for homeless persons.”
Chief Superintendent Andy Carter, responsible for policing in Camden, said: “We accept that the authority and use of the powers on this occasion were unlawful.
“We don’t underestimate the impact of this incident on the man and will be meeting him to apologise in person, and listen to any views he might have.
‘They talk nice then leave and forget everything’
WHILE Anthony Sinclair has been promised compensation, many of the other men who lost their tents and belongings during the eviction outside UCLH are still waiting to be compensated.
In shocking circumstances, the council’s waste removal contractors, Veolia, arrived to dump tents, which they were told were abandoned, in the back of their rubbish truck during the eviction on November 10.
The New Journal and Streets Kitchen organised a community meeting at St Michael’s Church following the scandal, which was attended by housing chiefs, the leader of Camden Council and chief executive Jenny Rowlands.
The council promised at the meeting that those affected would be compensated for their binned possessions.
Two people who were evicted, including Mr Sinclair, attended the meeting and gave their mobile numbers to members of the council, but no one has been contacted.
One man, who lost all his personal belongings of 23 years including his phone and grandfather’s watch, said: “They should be able to contact me if they want to, but I think they just talk nice in front of people and then when they leave they forget everything they said as soon as they turn their backs. They haven’t made any effort at all.”
A spokesperson for Camden Council said: “Where possible, we have been in contact with those who were moved on from the UCH site to offer them our full range of support, and accommodation. We will press the police and UCH to properly consider any claims they may receive as a matter of urgency.”