A Christian preacher who was arrested outside Southwark Cathedral in London while holding a placard that read “Love Muslims, Ban Islam, the Religion of Terror” has lost a legal challenge claiming he was unlawfully detained by police.

Ian Sleeper was taken into custody on June 23, 2017, on suspicion of committing a religiously aggravated public order offence. His protest occurred just weeks after the London Bridge terror attack, where three extremists inspired by Islamic State killed eight people and injured 48 in a van and knife attack.

Earlier that same year, the UK experienced several high-profile incidents of violence, including an attack on Westminster Bridge that left five dead, an Islamophobic van attack outside Finsbury Park Mosque that killed a Muslim man, and a suicide bombing at Manchester Arena during an Ariana Grande concert, which claimed 22 lives.

At the time of his arrest, the 57-year-old evangelical preacher was holding two signs. One read: “#Love Muslims, Hate Islam, Jesus is Love + Hope,” while the other stated: “Love Muslims, Ban Islam, the Religion of Terror.”

The Metropolitan Police justified their actions, citing the heightened tensions in the wake of multiple terror attacks. Mr. Sleeper was held in custody for over 12 hours before being released on bail. Two months later, he was informed that no criminal charges would be pursued.

Mr. Sleeper subsequently sued Scotland Yard, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and violations of his human rights. After losing his initial case, he appealed to the High Court, arguing that his right to protest had been unlawfully suppressed. However, his claim was ultimately rejected.

But Mr Justice Sweeting ruled on Tuesday that Mr Sleeper’s human rights had not been breached by his detention, and police had a case that his arrest was “necessary”.

“The basis for arrest was not confined to the possibility of a risk of harm eventuating to (Mr Sleeper) himself but extended to the risk to ‘other persons’ as a result of public disorder”, the judge noted.

He backed the conclusion that “the arrest and detention…was lawful.”

Venturing his case at an earlier hearing, Mr Sleeper’s barrister, Bruno Quintavalle, said: “The sign cannot reasonably be said ‘clearly to interfere’ with any rights of others.

“People in a mature democracy, such as the United Kingdom, are expected to be able to put up with insulting and abusive opposition to their religion or to their religious convictions and, this being the case, any violence which the sign might have provoked would not be a natural consequence of that speech nor would it be reasonable.”

He continued: “In any case, upon objective review, the court could not have concluded that any violence that might have resulted from the sign was a natural or reasonable consequence of the speech contained on it since the sign called upon the reader to ‘love Muslims’.

“As such, no offence… could objectively have been committed and no arrest and subsequent detention could therefore have been justified lawfully.”

The court heard a member of the public found the sign “a little bit distressing” and alerted police, with officers then asking him to give up the signs.

Mr Sleeper refused and was then arrested.

The Metropolitan Police fought his claim for damages, and argued in the High Court that the first judge who assessed Mr Sleeper’s case had come to a “reasonable finding…that exhorting people to hate a religion in the febrile context of Southwark in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Borough, and in Finsbury Park, was abusive and might lead to public disorder – whereas the same might not be the case at another time and in another place in, say, a debating society.

“It was also reasonable for the learned judge to believe that the appellant wanted to ban Islam, not least because he held up a sign saying that.”