• Facebook
  • Twitter
x

MARK KERRISON | Photojournalist

  • Live News Feed
  • Slideshows
  • About
    • About
    • Data Protection
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
Show Navigation
Cart Lightbox Client Area

Search Results

Refine Search
Match all words
Match any word
Prints
Personal Use
Royalty-Free
Rights-Managed
(leave unchecked to
search all images)
Next
{ 1173 images found }
twitterlinkedinfacebook

Loading ()...

  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Pannick QC, acting for businesswoman Gina Miller, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Sir James Eadie QC (l), acting for the Government, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-006.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-009.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-011.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-Brexit activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-EU activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-008.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-EU activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-EU activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Insulate Britain activist Ben Taylor talks to friends outside the High Court during a break from the hearing of applications brought against nine activists for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-012.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Signs placed by Insulate Britain activists outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine of them for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-013.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Insulate Britain activists gather with their families and friends outside the High Court before the hearing of applications brought against them for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-009.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. One of nine Insulate Britain climate activists is embraced outside the High Court during a break from the hearing of applications brought against them for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-003.jpg
  • Nine Insulate Britain activists gather with their families and friends outside the High Court before the hearing of applications brought against them for contempt of court by National Highways on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Keen QC (r),  Advocate General for Scotland, acting on behalf of the Government, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-012.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Keen QC (r),  Advocate General for Scotland, acting on behalf of the Government, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Pannick QC, acting for businesswoman Gina Miller, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-014.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-013.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-015.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-Brexit activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-Brexit activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-009.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-Brexit activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-Brexit activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-EU activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-010.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 September, 2019. Pro-EU activists protest outside the Supreme Court on the first day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-006.jpg
  • Stop HS2 campaigners stand alongside a banner outside High Wycombe Magistrates' Court to support fellow activists attending a hearing on 7th February 2022 in High Wycombe, United Kingdom. Seven activists are being tried in relation to a protest at Denham Ford in July 2020 intended to prevent the felling of a mature alder tree during electricity pylon relocation works in connection with the HS2 high-speed rail link.
    Stop-HS2-Denham-Ford-7-court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. A fellow activist embraces Insulate Britain activist Ben Taylor outside the High Court during a break from the hearing of applications brought against nine activists for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. One of nine Insulate Britain climate activists is embraced outside the High Court during a break from the hearing of applications brought against them for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Insulate Britain activists hold banners outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine fellow activists for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-011.jpg
  • Stop HS2 campaigners pose with a banner outside Uxbridge Magistrates Court on 15th December 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The campaigners include partially-sighted former Paralympian James Brown and fellow activist 'Jimmy' (both in the centre) who were appearing in court charged with criminal damage after allegedly climbing a drilling rig to be used for the HS2 high-speed rail project in February 2020 in order to raise awareness of risks from the infrastructure work to London's water supply from the chalk aquifer below the Colne Valley. The case was adjourned until February 2022.
    Stop-HS2-Drill-Rig-court-case-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Insulate Britain activists hold banners outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine fellow activists for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-010.jpg
  • Insulate Britain activists hold banners outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine activists for contempt of court by National Highways on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-008.jpg
  • Insulate Britain activists hold banners outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine activists for contempt of court by National Highways on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-002.jpg
  • Insulate Britain activists hold a banner outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine activists for contempt of court by National Highways on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-004.jpg
  • Signs placed by Insulate Britain activists outside the High Court during the hearing of applications brought against nine activists for contempt of court by National Highways on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-High-Court-006.jpg
  • Stop HS2 campaigners pose with banners outside Uxbridge Magistrates Court on 15th December 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The campaigners include partially-sighted former Paralympian James Brown and fellow activist 'Jimmy' (both in the centre) who were appearing in court charged with criminal damage after allegedly climbing a drilling rig to be used for the HS2 high-speed rail project in February 2020 in order to raise awareness of risks from the infrastructure work to London's water supply from the chalk aquifer below the Colne Valley. The case was adjourned until February 2022.
    Stop-HS2-Drill-Rig-court-case-002.jpg
  • An anti-HS2 sign is pictured outside Uxbridge Magistrates Court on 15th December 2021 in London, United Kingdom. Two environmental campaigners, partially-sighted former Paralympian James Brown and fellow activist 'Jimmy', were appearing in court charged with criminal damage after allegedly climbing a drilling rig to be used for the HS2 high-speed rail project in February 2020 in order to raise awareness of risks from the infrastructure work to London's water supply from the chalk aquifer below the Colne Valley. The case was adjourned until February 2022.
    Stop-HS2-Drill-Rig-court-case-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. Disability rights activists from groups represented by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) gather outside the Royal Courts of Justice in support of a High Court challenge by four claimants against the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to omit 'legacy benefits' such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from the £20-a-week uplift in Universal Credit. A decision in favour of the claimants could lead to the DWP having to make back payments to almost 2 million sick and disabled people.
    High-Court-UC-legacy-benefits-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. Paula Peters of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) addresses disability rights activists from groups represented by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) outside the Royal Courts of Justice before a High Court challenge by four claimants against the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to omit 'legacy benefits' such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from the £20-a-week uplift in Universal Credit. A decision in favour of the claimants could lead to the DWP having to make back payments to almost 2 million sick and disabled people.
    High-Court-UC-legacy-benefits-006.jpg
  • A Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) banner is pictured outside the Royal Courts of Justice before a High Court challenge by four claimants against the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to omit 'legacy benefits' such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from the £20-a-week uplift in Universal Credit on 17th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. A decision in favour of the claimants could lead to the DWP having to make back payments to almost 2 million sick and disabled people.
    High-Court-UC-legacy-benefits-003.jpg
  • High Wycombe, UK. 7th March, 2022. Stop HS2 campaigners stand behind a banner outside High Wycombe Magistrates' Court. Four activists were acquitted of aggravated trespass in relation to a protest at a beauty spot in Denham Country Park in July 2020 intended to prevent the felling of a mature alder tree during electricity pylon relocation works for the HS2 high-speed rail link. One activist was convicted of assault.
    Stop-HS2-Denham-Ford-4-court-001.jpg
  • High Wycombe, UK. 7th March, 2022. Stop HS2 campaigners embrace outside High Wycombe Magistrates' Court. Four activists were acquitted of aggravated trespass in relation to a protest at a beauty spot in Denham Country Park in July 2020 intended to prevent the felling of a mature alder tree during electricity pylon relocation works for the HS2 high-speed rail link. One activist (not pictured) was convicted of assault.
    Stop-HS2-Denham-Ford-4-court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. Paula Peters of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) addresses disability rights activists from groups represented by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) outside the Royal Courts of Justice before a High Court challenge by four claimants against the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to omit 'legacy benefits' such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from the £20-a-week uplift in Universal Credit. A decision in favour of the claimants could lead to the DWP having to make back payments to almost 2 million sick and disabled people.
    High-Court-UC-legacy-benefits-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. Paula Peters of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) addresses disability rights activists from groups represented by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) outside the Royal Courts of Justice before a High Court challenge by four claimants against the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to omit 'legacy benefits' such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from the £20-a-week uplift in Universal Credit. A decision in favour of the claimants could lead to the DWP having to make back payments to almost 2 million sick and disabled people.
    High-Court-UC-legacy-benefits-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 October, 2019. Metropolitan Police officers form a cordon in front of activists from the XR Peace group of Extinction Rebellion protesting outside the Supreme Court to highlight the Government’s continuing failure to respect international law regarding arms sales as part of the 11th day of International Rebellion Autumn Uprising protests. Eight activists from the Trident Ploughshares group, including a 91-year-old man, glued themselves together outside the court.
    XR-Peace-arms-Supreme-Court-003.jpg
  • Disability rights activists from groups represented by the Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) gather outside the Royal Courts of Justice in support of a High Court challenge by four claimants against the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to omit 'legacy benefits' such as Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) from the £20-a-week uplift in Universal Credit on 17th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. A decision in favour of the claimants could lead to the DWP having to make back payments to almost 2 million sick and disabled people.
    High-Court-UC-legacy-benefits-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 October, 2019. Metropolitan Police officers form a cordon in front of activists from the XR Peace group of Extinction Rebellion protesting outside the Supreme Court to highlight the Government’s continuing failure to respect international law regarding arms sales as part of the 11th day of International Rebellion Autumn Uprising protests. Eight activists from the Trident Ploughshares group, including a 91-year-old man, glued themselves together outside the court.
    XR-Peace-arms-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Brexit supporters protest outside the Supreme Court on the second day of a hearing to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-016.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Jolyon Maugham QC debates with Brexit supporters outside the Supreme Court at lunchtime on the second day of a hearing to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by proroguing Parliament in advance of Brexit Day.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-010.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Jolyon Maugham QC leaves the Supreme Court at lunchtime on the second day of a hearing to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by proroguing Parliament in advance of Brexit Day.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-008.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 October, 2019. A Metropolitan Police officer arrests one of eight activists from Trident Ploughshares who had glued themselves together outside the Supreme Court during a protest by activists from the XR Peace group of Extinction Rebellion to highlight the Government’s continuing failure to respect international law regarding arms sales on the 11th day of International Rebellion Autumn Uprising protests.
    XR-Peace-arms-Supreme-Court-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 October, 2019. Metropolitan Police officers arrest one of eight activists from Trident Ploughshares who had glued themselves together outside the Supreme Court during a protest by activists from the XR Peace group of Extinction Rebellion to highlight the Government’s continuing failure to respect international law regarding arms sales on the 11th day of International Rebellion Autumn Uprising protests.
    XR-Peace-arms-Supreme-Court-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 17 October, 2019. Metropolitan Police officers arrest one of eight activists from Trident Ploughshares who had glued themselves together outside the Supreme Court during a protest by activists from the XR Peace group of Extinction Rebellion to highlight the Government’s continuing failure to respect international law regarding arms sales on the 11th day of International Rebellion Autumn Uprising protests.
    XR-Peace-arms-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-008.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-009.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 21st January, 2019. Licensed taxi drivers, or black cab drivers, block Tottenham Court Road in protest against a ruling by Camden Council that taxis, lorries and cars will be banned from the road from 8am-7pm on Monday to Saturday with effect from March 2019. The road, and nearby Gower Street, will also be transformed from one-way to two-way traffic.
    Taxi-drivers-Tottenham-Court-006.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Sarah Wollaston, Liberal Democrat MP for Totnes, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Sarah-Wollaston-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Jess-Phillips-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Businessman Gina Miller leaves broadcasting studios in Westminster following an interview the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Gina-Miller-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Frank Field, Independent MP for Birkenhead, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Frank-Field-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Sarah Wollaston, Liberal Democrat MP for Totnes, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Sarah-Wollaston-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Tobias Ellwood, Conservative MP for Bournemouth East, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Tobias-Ellwood-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Tobias Ellwood, Conservative MP for Bournemouth East, holds up a Parliamentary order paper as he is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Tobias-Ellwood-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Peter Bone, pro-Brexit Conservative MP for Wellingborough, walks towards Parliament on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Peter-Bone-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Peter Bone, pro-Brexit Conservative MP for Wellingborough, walks towards Parliament on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Peter-Bone-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Businessman Gina Miller leaves broadcasting studios in Westminster following an interview the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Gina-Miller-Supreme-Court-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Businessman Gina Miller leaves broadcasting studios in Westminster following an interview the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Gina-Miller-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Frank Field, Independent MP for Birkenhead, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Frank-Field-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Ed Vaizey, Independent MP for Didcot and Wantage, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Ed-Vaizey-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Ed Vaizey, Independent MP for Didcot and Wantage, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Ed-Vaizey-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott arrives at broadcasting studios in Westminster for an interview the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Diane-Abbott-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Chuka Umunna, Liberal Democrat MP for Streatham, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Chuka-Umunna-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Sarah Wollaston, Liberal Democrat MP for Totnes, is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Sarah-Wollaston-Supreme-Court-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Lord Heseltine is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Lord-Heseltine-Supreme-Court-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Lord Heseltine is interviewed on College Green on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Lord-Heseltine-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 15th January, 2019. Signs brought by environmental campaigners from Foil Vedanta protesting outside the Supreme Court where British mining company Vedanta Resources is appealing High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that 1,826 Zambian villagers may have their case regarding pollution against the company's subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) heard in the UK. The villagers contend that Konkola Copper Mines has polluted the River Kafue with excessive levels of copper, cobalt and manganese since 2004, causing sickness, deaths, damage to property and loss of income.
    Foil-Vedanta-protest-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. An Insulate Britain activist speaks outside the High Court after nine fellow activists were jailed for contempt of court. The activists had admitted breaching an injunction by taking part in a blockade at junction 25 of the M25 on 8th October to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-verdict-004.jpg
  • Insulate Britain activists pose behind banners outside the High Court after the second day of a hearing of applications brought against nine fellow activists for contempt of court by National Highways on 17th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The activists were jailed after they admitted breaching an injunction by taking part in a blockade at junction 25 of the M25 on 8th October to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-verdict-003.jpg
  • Insulate Britain activists pose behind a banner outside the High Court before the second day of a hearing of applications brought against nine of them for contempt of court by National Highways on 17th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030.
    Insulate-Britain-9-verdict-027.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Retired police officer John Murray poses outside the High Court before bringing a civil claim for a nominal amount of £1 against Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk, a former minister in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government, for assault and battery in relation to the killing in April 1984 of his former colleague PC Yvonne Fletcher. A High Court judge later found Mabrouk jointly liable for PC Fletcher's shooting.
    John-Murray-Yvonne-Fletcher-009.jpg
  • Retired police officer John Murray poses outside the High Court before bringing a civil claim for a nominal amount of £1 against Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk, a former minister in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government, for assault and battery in relation to the killing in April 1984 of his former colleague PC Yvonne Fletcher on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. A High Court judge later found Mabrouk jointly liable for PC Fletcher's shooting.
    John-Murray-Yvonne-Fletcher-006.jpg
  • London, UK. 15th January, 2019. Environmental campaigners from Foil Vedanta protest outside the Supreme Court where British mining company Vedanta Resources is appealing High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that 1,826 Zambian villagers may have their case regarding pollution against the company's Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) heard in the UK. The villagers contend that Konkola Copper Mines has polluted the River Kafue with excessive levels of copper, cobalt and manganese since 2004, causing sickness, deaths, damage to property and loss of income.
    Foil-Vedanta-protest-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 15th January, 2019. Signs brought by environmental campaigners from Foil Vedanta protesting outside the Supreme Court where British mining company Vedanta Resources is appealing High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that 1,826 Zambian villagers may have their case regarding pollution against the company's subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) heard in the UK. The villagers contend that Konkola Copper Mines has polluted the River Kafue with excessive levels of copper, cobalt and manganese since 2004, causing sickness, deaths, damage to property and loss of income.
    Foil-Vedanta-protest-003.jpg
  • Retired police officer John Murray (second right) poses outside the High Court after winning a civil claim for a nominal amount of £1 against Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk, a former minister in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government, for assault and battery in relation to the killing in April 1984 of his former colleague PC Yvonne Fletcher on 16th November 2021 in London, United Kingdom. Mr Mabrouk was found jointly liable for PC Fletcher's shooting by a High Court judge. (photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images)
    MK-2021 Selection-010.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Sarah Finch joins environmental campaigners and her legal team outside the Court of Appeal before her legal challenge, joined by Friends of the Earth, against a decision by Surrey County Council in 2019 to allow two decades of oil production at Horse Hill in Surrey. A High Court judge previously found that the council had acted lawfully in making its decision but Ms Finch is now asking the Court of Appeal to consider whether the Environmental Impact Assessment forming part of the planning decision-making process should also have taken into account the significant greenhouse gas emissions which will arise from the subsequent burning of the extracted oil.
    Horse-Hill-oil-appeal-019.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Environmental campaigners gather outside the Court of Appeal in support of a legal challenge by Sarah Finch, joined by Friends of the Earth, against a decision by Surrey County Council in 2019 to allow two decades of oil production at Horse Hill in Surrey. A High Court judge previously found that the council had acted lawfully in making its decision but Ms Finch is now asking the Court of Appeal to consider whether the Environmental Impact Assessment forming part of the planning decision-making process should also have taken into account the significant greenhouse gas emissions which will arise from the subsequent burning of the extracted oil.
    Horse-Hill-oil-appeal-021.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Environmental campaigners gather outside the Court of Appeal in support of a legal challenge by Sarah Finch, joined by Friends of the Earth, against a decision by Surrey County Council in 2019 to allow two decades of oil production at Horse Hill in Surrey. A High Court judge previously found that the council had acted lawfully in making its decision but Ms Finch is now asking the Court of Appeal to consider whether the Environmental Impact Assessment forming part of the planning decision-making process should also have taken into account the significant greenhouse gas emissions which will arise from the subsequent burning of the extracted oil.
    Horse-Hill-oil-appeal-020.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Environmental campaigners gather outside the Court of Appeal in support of a legal challenge by Sarah Finch, joined by Friends of the Earth, against a decision by Surrey County Council in 2019 to allow two decades of oil production at Horse Hill in Surrey. A High Court judge previously found that the council had acted lawfully in making its decision but Ms Finch is now asking the Court of Appeal to consider whether the Environmental Impact Assessment forming part of the planning decision-making process should also have taken into account the significant greenhouse gas emissions which will arise from the subsequent burning of the extracted oil.
    Horse-Hill-oil-appeal-012.jpg
  • London, UK. 16th November, 2021. Retired police officer John Murray is interviewed outside the High Court after winning a civil claim for a nominal amount of £1 against Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk, a former minister in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government, for assault and battery in relation to the killing in April 1984 of his former colleague PC Yvonne Fletcher. Mr Mabrouk was found jointly liable for PC Fletcher's shooting by a High Court judge.
    John-Murray-Yvonne-Fletcher-011.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. Insulate Britain activists queue outside the High Court before the second day of a hearing of applications brought against nine of them for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Insulate-Britain-9-verdict-038.jpg
  • London, UK. 17th November, 2021. Insulate Britain activists pose behind a banner outside the High Court before the second day of a hearing of applications brought against them for contempt of court by National Highways. The applications were brought after the activists breached injunctions by blocking the M25 to call on the government to fund the insulation of social housing by 2025 and all homes in Britain by 2030. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Insulate-Britain-9-verdict-033.jpg
Next