• 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)
{ 86 images found }
twitterlinkedinfacebook

Loading ()...

  • 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. 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-004.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
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Sarah Wollaston, Liberal Democrat MP for Totnes, returns to 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-013.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Metropolitan Police officers detain a masked protester outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Phillip Lee, Liberal Democrat MP for Bracknell, returns to 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-015.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-012.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Phillip Lee, Liberal Democrat MP for Bracknell, prepares to return to Parliament with his colleagues 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-008.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Pro- and anti-Brexit activists protest outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Pro- and anti-Brexit activists protest as MPs arrive at the House of Commons on the day after the Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful, void and of no effect”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Pro- and anti-Brexit activists protest outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. A man dressed as the Incredible Hulk stands among pro- and anti-Brexit activists protesting outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-006.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Pro- and anti-Brexit activists protest outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Metropolitan Police officers detain a masked protester outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-008.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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-021.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Luciana Berger, Liberal Democrat MP for Liverpool Wavertree, returns to 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-011.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-016.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Chuka Umunna, Liberal Democrat MP for Streatham, prepares to return to Parliament with his colleagues 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-010.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Sir Ed Davey, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, prepares to return to Parliament with his colleagues 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, prepares to return to Parliament with her colleagues 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-019.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Layla Moran, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, returns to 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-006.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-014.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-020.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Chuka Umunna, Liberal Democrat MP for Streatham, prepares to return to Parliament with his colleagues 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Pro- and anti-Brexit activists protest outside the Houses of 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”.
    MPs-return-Parliament-protest-005.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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-017.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Party leader Jo Swinson addresses the media before returning to Parliament with her fellow Liberal Democrat MPs 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-009.jpg
  • London, UK. 25 September, 2019. Phillip Lee, Liberal Democrat MP for Bracknell, returns to 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
    Liberal-Democrats-Parliament-018.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-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. 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. 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-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-015.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-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-004.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
  • 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-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-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 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
  • 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  • Richard-Tice-Supreme-Court-001.jpg
  • Richard-Tice-Supreme-Court-003.jpg
  • Richard-Tice-Supreme-Court-002.jpg