Press Release – 29 April 2025

Author: James Robert-Warwick Stuart
Issued: 29 April 2025, 22:30 BST
Edited: 29 April 2025, 23:04 BST
Updated: 30 April 2025, 01:17 BST
Event Location: Manchester, United Kingdom

Critical Background

On 23 November 2024, a Section 34 Dispersal Order was authorised by Superintendent Phil Spurgeon of Greater Manchester Police, citing reports of large gatherings and alleged anti-social behaviour from Traveller communities attending the Manchester Christmas Markets. [1] From the outset, the justification relied heavily on anticipated, rather than actual, offences, including references to cultural traditions such as "grabbing." [2]

"Manchester Christmas markets on and city will be incredibly congested. On a Sat or Sun while markets are on, we usually see a large group of youths/young adults from the Traveller community attend the city centre for a social gathering."

"The intelligence refers to an annual Travellers ‘Grabbing’ event. During 2023, GMP recorded a Travellers ‘Grabbing’ event. This event took place on the 26 November 2023 with approximately 300 attendees.

Incidents involved two individuals being arrested for affray and bottles being thrown between the crowd. The decision to not send in officers was made due to the possibility of escalating the situation."

A legitimate question now arises here, one of severe legal importance: If the 2023 decision, was to NOT send in officers due to risk of escalation.

What operational decision changed under the circumstances, between 2023 and 2024, in which qualified, or gave the lawful context under existing Case Law, for the use of Dispersal Orders under The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?

Event Overview

On 23 November 2024, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) issued the multiple Section 34 Dispersal Orders, one extending across all boroughs of Greater Manchester [4], followed by another directly in the Manchester City Centre [5], targeting groups identified as being part of the Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) communities [6]. These measures were taken in the context of the Manchester Christmas Markets [7], a place I know well and once worked within, serving the people of this city I once called home, it was the city i was born in.

"One year, they [Travellers] attended Trafford Centre. Groups typically number 300/400. While many of those attending are simply meeting and enjoying the city centre attractions, we typically see a significant number involved in antisocial behaviour and some crime."

This has involved:

• Traveller males 'grabbing' Traveller females
• Disruption to roads and tram tracks, usually Exchange Square
• Some hate crime (abuse)
• Throwing of objects, including towards police; bottles were thrown last year
• Groups swarming police officers who attempt to engage or enforce Dispersal powers
• Disruption to markets and intimidation of staff and members of the public

"Due to low numbers returned the ages have been merged into age groups as by providing all this information split by exact age as you have requested would significantly increase the likelihood of identifying the individual(s) concerned, and as such the exemption under S40(2) – Personal Information, would be engaged and result in information being refused. By merging this data, it can be provided in its entirety."

• AGE RANGE - TOTAL
• 10 - 15 YEARS OLD - TOTAL NUMBER 12 INDIVIDUALS
  

Note From James: (Protected Subjects under the Childrens Act Laws) - The Welfare of a Child is Paramount Consideration in any and every legal setting, whether public or private. According to the College of Policing Website: it states "The police have a duty to safeguard and protect children. Concerns for the safety of officers attending an incident should not prevent them being deployed to protect a child." - it is my legal, and professional view, that, such safeguards, were failed to be met by the Standard of Polcing exerted under the dispersal orders, and it is unnacceptable. - One girl - aged just 13 and from Doncaster - ended up more than 100 miles away from Manchester in Grimsby.



• 16 - 20 YEARS OLD - TOTAL NUMBER 13 INDIVIDUALS


• 21 - 30 YEARS OLD - TOTAL NUMBER 3 INDIVIDUALS


• 31 YEARS OLD+ - TOTAL NUMBER 4 INDIVIDUALS


• Total Number of individuals Recorded - 32

I was deeply concerned by the clear and apparent overreach and the risk of discrimination to the majority of individuals directly affected by this incident. Accordingly under the statutory provisions and powers available to me, and in the name of the Crown that i lawfully descend from...

I accordingly filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request on 25 November 2024 (Reference: FOI/24/013709/P) [8], followed by a second FOI request on 3 January 2025 (Reference: 01/FOI/25/013911/K) [9].

These requests sought full transparency into the decision-making process, legal reasoning, and safeguarding considerations taken by GMP regarding the dispersal orders.

As Part of my original FOI request submitted via the public WhatDoTheyKnow platform, in my request asked the following to be produced:

• A copy of the written authorisation.
• The legal reasoning, including how Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act were taken into account.
• The evidential basis for believing a breach of the peace was likely.
• Whether "thought crime" or predictive offences were considered.
• Ethnic breakdown and reports of complaints or racial profiling.

"I am writing to you as James Stuart, the Stuart Prince of Wales, and Catholic Heir to the Throne, born in Manchester. As someone with deep ties to the city and its history, I am greatly concerned about the recent dispersal order issued at 12:13 PM on Saturday, [23rd November 2024], which appears to have disproportionately targeted Gypsy, Romany, and Traveller communities in relation to Manchester’s Christmas Markets, The Town Center and The Arndale shopping center.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information:

Details of the Authorisation:

1.) A copy of the written authorisation issued under Section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including the specific grounds provided for its enforcement.
1A.) The name and rank of the officer who authorised the order.
1B.) The “specified locality” and the duration for which the order was active. Legal and Evidential Basis:

2.) Evidence or rationale used to determine the "reasonable grounds" for issuing the order, specifically regarding the likelihood of:
2a). Members of the public being harassed, alarmed, or distressed.
2b.) Crime or disorder occurring in the specified locality;
2b, i) What kind of crime that may be, or could be?
2b, ii) and any references to thought Crime - i.e. crimes that have not been committed but are suspected to be thought of in another's mind.

3.) An explanation of how Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (freedom of expression and assembly) were taken into account during this decision-making process.

Note From James: It would later transpire that, this part of the request, would be initially refused to be provided by GMP, citing that it did not fall under the legal scope of the Freedom of Information Act - This required a further seperate request for this information. Why?

GMP’s FIRST RESPONSE (17 December 2024 – Ref: FOI/24/013709/P)

While some documents were released, such as the Section 34 notices, GMP evaded critical legal transparency on human rights grounds:

“Question 3 – Invalid question under the FOIA. We are not obliged to provide opinions or explanations.”

Additionally, GMP withheld raw incident data by citing:

“The exemption under S40(2) – Personal Information... would significantly increase the likelihood of identifying the individual(s) concerned.”

They merged age groups and only confirmed that all individuals recorded were White, without disaggregating ethnicity further.

DOCUMENT EXCERPT — SECTION 34 NOTICE (GMP Internal Risk Narrative)

“On a Sat or Sun while markets are on, we usually see a large group of youths/young adults from the Traveller community… Groups typically number 300/400... This has involved:

SECOND FOI REQUEST (3 January 2025 – Ref: 01/FOI/25/013911/K)

In response to GMP’s evasion, I re-phrased the question:

“Please provide any and all recorded information relating to the Section 34 Dispersal Orders... that demonstrates how Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were considered. This may include, but is not limited to:

Meeting minutes

Internal and external correspondence

Policy or guidance documents

Assessment reports

I asserted that my question concerned recorded decision-making, not opinions, and thus was squarely within FOIA’s scope.

Impact and Enforcement:

4.) The number of individuals affected by the order, particularly in relation to age and ethnicity.

4a.) Any reports, complaints, or evidence of heavy-handed enforcement tactics, including the use of force or arrests.

Application of the Order:

5.) Clarification on whether Gypsy, Romany, and Traveller communities were explicitly or implicitly targeted.

6.) Details of any public communications or announcements made to justify this order.

Reason for Request:

As a descendant of both Scottish and English monarchs and a born Mancunian, I feel a responsibility to advocate for the fair and equitable treatment of all communities. The apparent targeting of vulnerable groups raises serious concerns about potential breaches of human rights, overreach of police powers, and misuse of public authority. Transparency in this matter is vital to maintaining trust in law enforcement and governance. I kindly request that this information be provided within the statutory 20-working-day timeframe. Depending on the basis of the evidence furnished, decisions will be taken whether to further refer this matter onto a prosecutor for potential breaches to Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Potential Misuse of Police Powers

It is important to highlight that the issuance and enforcement of the dispersal order in question could potentially fall within the scope of Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which criminalizes the corrupt or improper exercise of police powers and privileges.

Under this legislation:

7.) A police constable commits an offence if they:
7 i.) Exercise their powers improperly, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know the exercise is improper.
7 ii.) Fail to exercise their powers for improper purposes, with the intention of achieving a benefit or causing a detriment.
7 iii.) Improper use is defined as any exercise of police powers for purposes that a reasonable person would not expect, such as:

7A.) Targeting a specific community, such as Gypsy, Romany, and Traveller individuals, without substantiated grounds.
7B.) Implementing measures disproportionately or with excessive force that could lead to public distress or trauma, particularly among vulnerable groups like teenagers.

Breaches of this law are considered serious, carrying penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment or a fine (or both) for offending officers. Given the circumstances described, the apparent targeting of a specific community and the use of heavy-handed tactics raise concerns about whether the powers were exercised in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and legality. This concern necessitates a full investigation into the motivations and grounds for the dispersal order, as well as the tactics employed.

As the Stuart Prince of Wales, I feel compelled to ensure that all communities are treated fairly and equitably under the law. Any misuse of police powers erodes public trust in law enforcement and undermines the foundational principles of justice. I respectfully request that these concerns be thoroughly investigated and addressed."

Key Findings

• Only two arrests occurred during the 2023 “Traveller gathering” cited as justification for this year's wide-scale preemptive measures.
• A total of 32 individuals were affected by the 2024 dispersal, the majority aged under 20. Ethnicity data, where recorded, showed all were listed as White.
• GMP registered 57 complaints following the event, 35 of which involved treatment at train stations.
• The legal basis cited included intelligence from rail operators and reference to a cultural practice known as “grabbing” among Traveller communities.

Structured Human Rights Document

In response to my targeted FOI, GMP released a document titled Human Rights Structured Approach, which explicitly attempted to assess compliance with Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite this, it affirmed that dispersal powers could interfere with those rights where “public order” was cited as a risk — based on unverified predictive intelligence rather than actual incident data from 2024.

The released document referred to Traveller youths as a group that “almost certainly” would engage in disorder and justified intervention on the basis that ‘grabbing’ might distress members of the public.

The structured justification drew heavily from outdated cultural assumptions and the risk of “anticipated” breaches of the peace — echoing the reasoning challenged in R (Laporte) v Gloucestershire Chief Constable (2006).

Legal Impact

On 24 April 2025, law firm Leigh Day published an article citing my FOI disclosures in their legal advocacy for The Traveller Movement, who have since submitted a formal request for an independent IOPC investigation. The article, titled Travellers request IOPC review of Greater Manchester Police response to Christmas Markets chaos, credited the FOI disclosures for exposing what they termed “vague assertions and uncorroborated intelligence.”

Full FOI Documentation

• Original FOI Request
• Manchester Dispersal Notice (PDF)
• Greater Manchester Dispersal Notice (PDF)
• Structured HRA Document (PDF)

Final Statement

I, James Robert-Warwick Stuart, formally waive any anonymity and affirm that I was the original requester who secured these documents. I stand in full support of the Traveller Movement and other organisations holding police and institutions accountable.

In my view, GMP’s actions, as revealed through their own documentation, amount to racial profiling, institutional bias, and the misuse of statutory powers under the guise of public order management.

Justice must be more than a word. It must be actioned, documented, and defended. I will continue to stand for those unlawfully treated or disregarded by those in power — not only as a legal researcher and constitutional claimant, but as a voice for the marginalised in our nation.

Personal Declaration

As the Stuart Prince of Wales and a direct male-line descendant of the O'Donovan royal bloodline of Ireland, I wish to make this personal statement clear:

As the Stuart Prince of Wales and a direct male-line descendant of the O'Donovan royal bloodline of Ireland, I wish to make this personal statement clear: I identify as a Traveller. Not because I live in a caravan, but because I come from a noble line of travellers. I have moved across this country, slept in vehicles, and lived transiently — not by luxury, but by necessity and spirit. Just because I do not fit the externally imposed, stereotypical definition of what society deems a “Traveller,” does not mean I am not one. Discrimination rooted in appearance, housing type, or status is not just unjust — it is unlawful. Traveller identity is not confined to caravans or campgrounds; it is ancestral, cultural, and lived. Whether on wheels, in transit, or by lineage, Travellers exist in every form society dares not recognise — until it is forced to. That recognition begins now.

Press Contact:
[email protected] (The Scottish Crown)