Law firm takes up case of nurse fined £10,000 for 1% pay protest
Karen Reissmann, a frontline worker throughout the pandemic, was given the fixed penalty by Greater Manchester police
Greater Manchester police officers speak to NHS nurse Karen Reissmann after breaking up a protest in the city against the proposed 1% pay rise for NHS workers. Photograph: Jacob King/PA
Mark Townsend
@townsendmark
Sat 24 Apr 2021
One of the UK’s biggest police forces is refusing to back down after being accused of wrongly issuing a £10,000 fine to a nurse who was protesting over the government’s 1% pay rise for NHS workers, reigniting concern over new powers to inhibit protest.
Karen Reissmann, 61, who has worked as a frontline nurse throughout the pandemic, was handed the fine in March despite offering a risk assessment of her protest to Greater Manchester police (GMP) and ensuring it was Covid-safe. On 1 April, London law firm Bindmans, acting on Reissmann’s behalf, wrote to GMP saying that the way the force had interpreted the law was wrong, that the protest should have been allowed to proceed, and that it should also withdraw the fine.
However, in a written response, dated a week later, GMP’s lead for public order, assistant chief constable Nick Bailey, explained that the force’s lawyers had reviewed the £10,000 fine and were “satisfied that the issue was proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary in the circumstances”.
Bailey added: “We now feel that this is a matter for the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] and await its consideration around any subsequent prosecution if the fixed penalty notice is not paid.”
Reissmann, a nurse for 39 years, said: “Somebody calculated that if I used my 1% pay rise, it would take me 56 years to pay the fine off.
“I just really don’t understand why they are pursuing me after all that has happened. Why are they doing this? It’s very odd for the police not to have realised their position.”
The force’s determination to prosecute comes against the backdrop of the government’s police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, which will leave police to use their own discretion, and potentially criminalise protests.
Legal documents show that Reissmann, who has seen her caseload surge because of anxiety induced by the pandemic, was the first among her colleagues to suggest the “necessity for the wearing of face masks by staff and patients when they had not yet been made compulsory”.
Reissmann organised the protest on 7 March after the government’s decision to recommend a 1% pay rise – a move Labour predicted could help to make new nurses £300 worse off. About 40 people attended her rally in St Peter’s Square, Manchester, after she requested a limit of protesters to guarantee social distancing.
Reissmann believes the force’s desire to prosecute was meant to intimidate other nurses from organising protests.
“It’s so punitive, clearly designed to stop others. I know people who stepped back from protesting because they were afraid of the £10,000 fine,” she said.
Reissmann’s lawyer, Jules Carey, said: “Police forces have consistently relied on the Covid regulations as a pretext to ban protest. This is not just a dangerous encroachment on the rights of citizens but it risks muting important voices that would help government avoid costly mistakes. It is both an error in law and common sense not to listen carefully to people on the streets protesting at this time and perhaps especially those like Karen on the frontline of the pandemic.”
With GMP’s stance apparently not changing, last Thursday Bindmans notified the force of its intention to challenge its “unlawful” decision, stating it had not offered an explanation for why it considered its decision necessary or proportionate.
It also points to an email, dated 22 March and written by Bailey, which states: “Consciously, the legislation during both the recent lockdowns did not allow for protests to be exempt, effectively making protests of more than one person unlawful within the period of the lockdown.”
Bindmans again says this is an incorrect interpretation, arguing there was no blanket ban on protest, a view supported by a recent high court judgment over gatherings connected to the killing of Sarah Everard that deemed protest is not prohibited under Covid regulations.
If the government cares about freedom of expression, why is it passing the police and crime bill?
Kirsty Brimelow
Mark Townsend
@townsendmark
Sat 24 Apr 2021
One of the UK’s biggest police forces is refusing to back down after being accused of wrongly issuing a £10,000 fine to a nurse who was protesting over the government’s 1% pay rise for NHS workers, reigniting concern over new powers to inhibit protest.
Karen Reissmann, 61, who has worked as a frontline nurse throughout the pandemic, was handed the fine in March despite offering a risk assessment of her protest to Greater Manchester police (GMP) and ensuring it was Covid-safe. On 1 April, London law firm Bindmans, acting on Reissmann’s behalf, wrote to GMP saying that the way the force had interpreted the law was wrong, that the protest should have been allowed to proceed, and that it should also withdraw the fine.
However, in a written response, dated a week later, GMP’s lead for public order, assistant chief constable Nick Bailey, explained that the force’s lawyers had reviewed the £10,000 fine and were “satisfied that the issue was proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary in the circumstances”.
Bailey added: “We now feel that this is a matter for the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] and await its consideration around any subsequent prosecution if the fixed penalty notice is not paid.”
Reissmann, a nurse for 39 years, said: “Somebody calculated that if I used my 1% pay rise, it would take me 56 years to pay the fine off.
“I just really don’t understand why they are pursuing me after all that has happened. Why are they doing this? It’s very odd for the police not to have realised their position.”
The force’s determination to prosecute comes against the backdrop of the government’s police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, which will leave police to use their own discretion, and potentially criminalise protests.
Legal documents show that Reissmann, who has seen her caseload surge because of anxiety induced by the pandemic, was the first among her colleagues to suggest the “necessity for the wearing of face masks by staff and patients when they had not yet been made compulsory”.
Reissmann organised the protest on 7 March after the government’s decision to recommend a 1% pay rise – a move Labour predicted could help to make new nurses £300 worse off. About 40 people attended her rally in St Peter’s Square, Manchester, after she requested a limit of protesters to guarantee social distancing.
Reissmann believes the force’s desire to prosecute was meant to intimidate other nurses from organising protests.
“It’s so punitive, clearly designed to stop others. I know people who stepped back from protesting because they were afraid of the £10,000 fine,” she said.
Reissmann’s lawyer, Jules Carey, said: “Police forces have consistently relied on the Covid regulations as a pretext to ban protest. This is not just a dangerous encroachment on the rights of citizens but it risks muting important voices that would help government avoid costly mistakes. It is both an error in law and common sense not to listen carefully to people on the streets protesting at this time and perhaps especially those like Karen on the frontline of the pandemic.”
With GMP’s stance apparently not changing, last Thursday Bindmans notified the force of its intention to challenge its “unlawful” decision, stating it had not offered an explanation for why it considered its decision necessary or proportionate.
It also points to an email, dated 22 March and written by Bailey, which states: “Consciously, the legislation during both the recent lockdowns did not allow for protests to be exempt, effectively making protests of more than one person unlawful within the period of the lockdown.”
Bindmans again says this is an incorrect interpretation, arguing there was no blanket ban on protest, a view supported by a recent high court judgment over gatherings connected to the killing of Sarah Everard that deemed protest is not prohibited under Covid regulations.
If the government cares about freedom of expression, why is it passing the police and crime bill?
Kirsty Brimelow
“The decision-making by GMP to not permit Reissmann’s protest, and to use criminal justice enforcement against her, was premised on the incorrect view that because there is no express exemption for protest in the [Covid] regulations, protests are therefore prohibited.
“The GMP applied a blanket policy that all protest was unlawful under the regulations. This approach was wrong in law and contrary to authority,” the letter states.
The force has been given until 3 May to respond, otherwise it will face a judicial review of its decision.
A crowdfunding campaign has been set up to pay the police force’s legal costs should Reissmann lose the challenge. If she wins, the nurse will send the money to help others fight similar cases where the police are accused of overstepping the mark.
GMP has been contacted for comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment