Cressida Dick insists Kate Middleton did not break the law by going to Sarah Everard vigil

The Duchess of Cambridge did not break the law by attending the vigil for Sarah Everard because ‘she was working’, Dame Cressida Dick said today, as she slammed politicians including Sadiq Khan who criticised her officers for arresting protesters.

The Met Commissioner also revealed that she knew in advance that Kate was heading to Clapham Common to lay flowers – but admitted the officer in charge of policing the event did not. 

The Commissioner backed the royal’s trip to south-west London on March 13, despite saying she would have personally attended herself ‘if the gathering had been legal’.

Dame Cressida also defended her officers after they arrested protesters during clashes later that night, saying they had faced ‘extreme provocation’ after the policing watchdog cleared her officers of wrongdoing yesterday.

The Commissioner described the policing of the event as ‘extremely professional and calm’, adding: ‘People should learn that police have a very difficult job’. 

And she hit out at politicians who criticised the Met’s tactics that night ‘without knowing the facts’, hours after the watchdog’s report rebuked the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan over his criticism of the arrests. MPs who called for Dame Cressida’s head included Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

She said: ‘People in responsible positions should stop and think before they judge’, adding that City Hall were warned the day before there would be arrests if protesters refused to disperse. 

Hundreds of people attended the vigil for Miss Everard, who was allegedly kidnapped and murdered by a Met armed officer. 

Asked if the Metropolitan Police knew about Kate’s visit to Clapham Common, Dame Cressida told the Today programme: ‘The Met did know, absolutely, but of course we take all sorts of precautions to make sure that we don’t unwittingly draw attention to visits like that.’

Asked if her visit was legal, the Met’s Commissioner replied: ‘I would imagine that, of course I have not asked her this question, but I think it’s worth looking at … just how strongly people felt, what she said about her attendance there.

‘She’s in the course of her duties, she was working.’

She added: ‘At that point people had a whole series of potential reasonable excuses for being away from home, we didn’t all have them.

‘I’ve picked out one that may apply to her but, let’s be clear, there was a very calm vigil to which she attended where lots and lots of people came.’

Kate, 39, sent the private letter after having attended a vigil for Miss Everard.

Sources have said the kidnap and murder of Miss Everard struck a chord with the Duchess. She is said to have remembered walking alone in London when she lived near where Miss Everard disappeared, before marrying Prince William.

The contents of the letter have been kept private, but she is believed to have expressed her sadness at Miss Everard’s death and told the family they are in her thoughts.

Kate previously laid flowers on Clapham Common at a vigil for Miss Everard. Her body was found in woodland in Kent after disappearing while walking home from a friend’s flat near the Common on March 3. 

Her death sparked an outpouring of support from women nationwide who have experienced sexual assault and discrimination.

A Palace source said at the time that Kate attended the vigil ‘to pay her respects to Sarah and her family’.

‘She remembers what it felt like to walk around London at night before she got married,’ the source said.  

Dame Cressida said today some people had spoken out in the immediate aftermath of the Clapham Common vigil ‘without knowing the facts’, in a thinly-veiled rebuke of politicians including the Mayor of London.

She told the BBC Radio Four Today programme: ‘I think there are two things that come out of this report about the immediate aftermath.

‘The first is that people in public life, people in responsible positions, should stop and think before they judge, whoever they may be.’

She added: ‘People should stop and think, because if they comment without knowing the facts, they may – and I would suggest on this occasion some people did – affect public confidence in their police service inappropriately.

‘And secondly affect the officers’ confidence about volunteering for the same duty in the next instance, if they are actually going to be criticised even when they’ve done a really good job.’

She said the vigil had been a ‘unique event’ after the ‘terrible death of Sarah Everard and the circumstances surrounding that’.

She added: ‘In fact, we were into International Women’s Week, the sense of what’s happening with violence against women and girls, and then we’ve got a bill in parliament. There was a lot going on. Emotions were high.’ 

After yesterday’s report, Dame Cressida Dick said the force will consider whether it ‘lacked empathy’ in the communications after the vigil.

She told the Today programme: ‘The report suggests that if we had been slightly more conciliatory, I think was the word, in our communications afterwards, then that might have helped with what I think is in modern-day parlance a kind of social media pile-on.’

Asked if she accepted that, she said: ‘We have to go away and think about that, of course we do. We have to see whether … we lacked empathy. 

She said the Metropolitan Police treated Sarah Everard’s vigil as an ‘unlawful’ gathering, when numbers increased and social distancing ended.

She told the Today programme: ‘It was clearly possible under the law for somebody who lived locally to walk as many did and lay flowers legally, there are other reasons why people might be in the area and they could have laid flowers calmly and peacefully, potentially legally.

‘You would have seen for six hours we did not enforce any laws, we showed some discretion and we allowed people to carry on.’

Dame Cressida added: ‘We knew that it would result in a mass gathering, we knew there would be large numbers, we knew who would come, we knew it would be unlawful.

‘I had a great deal of contact both with City Hall at the most senior levels and with senior members of the Government.’

She went on to say: ‘What I was saying consistently was this is likely to be illegal, if it is illegal and people do not disperse when they’re asked to do so, we will use as much discretion as we can, we will encourage people, we will try to get them to disperse, but if they don’t disperse we will end up arresting people.’

Priti Patel backed Scotland Yard’s handling of the Sarah Everard vigil last night after the policing watchdog cleared officers of wrongdoing.

The Home Secretary said police ‘acted the right way’, while the Chief Inspector of Constabulary said condemnation of heavy-handed tactics had been ‘unwarranted’.

In a thinly veiled rebuke to London Mayor Sadiq Khan – who branded officers’ behaviour ‘unacceptable’ – Sir Thomas Winsor said ‘leading voices’ had ‘jumped to conclusions’ and undermined public confidence in the police. The storm erupted after a vigil in memory of Miss Everard, 33, who vanished on her walk home in south London. 

Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens has been charged with her kidnap and murder.

The Duchess of Cambridge was among those who travelled to Clapham Common to pay tribute to Miss Everard on March 13. Hours later, shocking footage showed women being bundled to the ground in scenes which prompted calls from some MPs for Met Commissioner Cressida Dick to resign.

Miss Patel asked the policing watchdog to investigate, saying at the time that some of the scenes were ‘distressing’ – but Sir Thomas praised officers for acting ‘lawfully, sensitively and proportionately’ at the vigil, which resulted in nine people being fined.

His report said: ‘The chorus of those condemning the Metropolitan Police, and calling for the resignation of the Commissioner, within hours – and presumably, with a very limited understanding of what had happened – was unwarranted. Whereas a certain degree of uninformed commentary, particularly on social media, is inevitable, in this case some of the leading voices were those in positions of some responsibility. It is one thing – as in the case of the Home Secretary – to recognise that the scenes were worrying or upsetting. It is another to jump to conclusions – and in doing so, undermine public confidence in policing – based on very limited evidence. To do so shows a distinct lack of respect for public servants.’

Miss Patel said yesterday: ‘I stand by the police and I back the police. I know how difficult it is and has been for police during this pandemic.

‘They’ve put themselves in harm’s way throughout this entire pandemic and the sad fact of the matter is – as we saw on that night and as the report has reflected on as well, police officers were assaulted – they were subject to violent abuse.’ She said the report had shown that police ‘acted in the right way’, adding: ‘It’s important people don’t pre-judge without… the full facts. Quite frankly, I was absolutely appalled and sickened to see the level of violence that was being displayed… including violent behaviour towards female officers.’

Police chiefs had feared the vigil could be a target for terrorists. There were also concerns that the large crowds – thought to have peaked at around 1,500 people – risked spreading Covid. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that officers had tried to disperse the crowd peacefully and remained ‘calm and professional’ in the face of a torrent of abuse, including from some women who said they hoped female officers would be raped.

Although the vigil started peacefully, it was ‘overshadowed by the malign actions of a few’ after being hijacked by a rabble including Piers Corbyn, the brother of former Labour leader Jeremy.

Mr Khan had described the scenes from Clapham Common as ‘unacceptable’, adding that ‘it’s clear the response was at times neither appropriate nor proportionate’. MPs who called for Dame Cressida’s head included Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Yesterday Ken Marsh of the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said: ‘The knee-jerk commentary… has made the already difficult job of our colleagues in London incredibly harder. And more dangerous. These people should be ashamed.

‘This was outrageous behaviour from those who should know better and we trust as elected officials. We now call on these politicians to make themselves accountable and to apologise to our hard-working colleagues for the damage they have done.’

The watchdog’s report said the Met could have given a ‘more conciliatory response’ in the face of what was described as a ‘public relations disaster’. However, Matt Parr, who led the HMIC team, said critics ‘showed a lack of respect for public servants facing a complex situation, and undermined public confidence in policing based on very limited evidence’.

He added: ‘After reviewing a huge body of evidence – rather than a snapshot on social media – we found that there are some things the Met could have done better, but we saw nothing to suggest police officers acted in anything but a measured and proportionate way in challenging circumstances.’

Jamie Klingler of Reclaim These Streets, which planned the vigil, said the report was ‘a farce and a waste of time’. She added: ‘There’s no positive legacy. The Met has created an uphill battle for themselves.

I’ve spoken to some young teenage girls about what it was like to see those pictures. They were horrified. And that means the police on the ground are going to have a much harder time getting those women to report rapes and assaults. You don’t want women to be scared to walk into local police stations.’

Mr Khan said yesterday: ‘It is my job to stand up on behalf of Londoners and ensure that there is effective scrutiny of the Metropolitan Police – particularly in the light of such widespread public dismay. I accept the report, but it is clear that trust and confidence of women and girls in the police and criminal justice system is far from adequate.’

Scotland Yard assistant commissioner Louisa Rolfe said: ‘This report makes clear the difficult circumstances officers faced as a peaceful vigil became a hostile rally. We must always be consistent in our policing of public events. I am extremely proud of the restraint, compassion and professionalism officers showed during a fast- moving and challenging situation.’