Thames Valley Police have admitted acting unlawfully in arresting a trainee Baptist minister who called out “Who elected him?” at a local proclamation of the accession of King Charles III.
After a two-and-a-half-year battle, Symon Hill, 47, has been paid £2,500 in compensation over his wrongful arrest in September 2022.
Hill was on his way home from his church in Oxford on a Sunday morning, three days after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, when he found his way blocked by a procession to proclaim King Charles. He asked local police officers how he could avoid the crowds and remarked that he opposed the veneration of an unelected head of state.
“They got a bit defensive about it,” said Hill, who was at the time a teacher in adult education. “One asked, ‘Why are you here if you don’t agree with it?’ I was just going home.”
Charles was then declared our “only” king and “rightful liege lord”, at which point Hill called out from the back of the crowd: “Who elected him?”
A few people in the crowd told Hill to shut up, and he responded that a head of state was being imposed without the country’s explicit consent.
Three security guards then appeared, and ordered Hill to be quiet. He said he argued back at which point a number of police officers “swooped in”.
Hill was handcuffed and led away, as strangers challenged the right of the police to detain someone for voicing an opinion, even if it was one with which they disagreed.
Police body-worn camera footage from the arrest, disclosed in Hill’s legal case, captures officers saying: “But we do need to fine or de-arrest as we will get a complaint off the back of this.”
Hill was released but then asked to voluntarily attend a police station. “I was made aware then that it wasn’t so voluntary, so I did go to the police station,” he said.
Police later confirmed he had been detained on suspicion of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises “threatening or abusive words or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”. The law states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
Section 5 is a summary offence, meaning it is tried in a magistrates’ court (not a jury trial) and carries a maximum fine of £1,000. As a lower-tier public order offence it is intended to address lesser incidents of disorder or anti-social behaviour. No proof of actual harm is required – the offence is committed if the conduct is “likely” to cause someone harassment, alarm, or distress. In other words, it is enough that the words or behaviour were potentially distressing to a hypothetical bystander.
Given that Hill’s objection to the proclamation was non-violent and not obviously “threatening or abusive”, it’s perhaps not surprising that the Crown Prosecution Service later dropped the charge, stating the case “did not meet [their] legal test for a prosecution”.
Believing his arrest was wrongful, Hill pursued legal action, leading to the police settlement in early 2025.
Thames Valley police’s deputy chief constable, Ben Snuggs, said: “Thames Valley police has settled a claim with Mr Hill and has accepted that the grounds of the offence for which he was arrested were unlawful.
“Public order and public safety operations are a key part of policing and it’s important we use these circumstances to help shape our future response.”
Hill, who has a history of peace activism and protest, was supported in his legal action by the National Council for Civil Liberties, also known as Liberty.
Katy Watts, a lawyer at Liberty, said: “A functioning democracy relies on the ability to voice different opinions and discuss them in public spaces. Symon’s wrongful arrest shows how broad anti-protest laws are shutting down people’s freedom of expression.”
She also warned that newer laws (such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and Public Order Act 2023) add further restrictions, and can be employed in a way that discourages citizens from speaking out.
“We must urgently see a review of the broad anti-protest legislation to ensure that what happened to Symon cannot be allowed to happen again,” she said.
Hill, who now works as a chaplain at Aston University in Birmingham, said he had been “surprised” by the entire affair and by the two-and-a-half years it had taken for the police to admit their mistake.
“Opposing the monarchy is not a crime,” he said. “I’m very conscious that most people who are wrongly arrested are not able to take legal action.
“This is not just about me. It never has been. It is about the rights of all people to dissent, to express their views, to refuse to bow down, to assert the dignity and equality of all human beings.”
Section 5 has long been used to police protests and public dissent, drawing criticism for its impact on free speech.
Hill’s arrest was not an isolated case. In the days following Queen Elizabeth’s death, several anti-monarchy protesters were detained across the UK.
In London, a barrister was cautioned by police after being told that holding a blank sign or writing “Not my King” on it could lead to arrest under Section 5—because someone “might be offended.”
Elsewhere, a woman carrying a “Not my King” placard outside Parliament was led away by officers, though ultimately not charged.
