The legal steps taken to evict anti-capitalist protesters camping outside St Paul's Cathedral were more "extreme and draconian" than necessary, the Court of Appeal heard today.
Three judges headed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, are considering applications for permission to appeal against Mr Justice Lindblom's ruling in the High Court last month.
Granting orders for possession and injunctions against Occupy London, he said the proposed action by the City of London Corporation - which will not be enforced pending appeal - was "entirely lawful and justified", as well as necessary and proportionate.
The City said there was an "overwhelming" case for the court's intervention because of the impact on St Paul's Churchyard of the camp, which has been there since October 15 last year.
Its lawyers told the judge - who made a private visit to the site before Christmas - that the camp had acted as a magnet for disorder and crime in the area, impacted on worshippers, affected trade, and caused waste and hygiene problems.
Speaking for the protesters today, John Cooper QC said: "The crux is that the steps taken in the court below were more extreme and more draconian than was necessary."
He said that the judge conducted a "perfectly fair" hearing of the matter, and those he represented accepted his findings of fact regarding pressing social need and that the City had a legitimate aim.
But, the ensuing interference with the protesters' rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly were "not the least intrusive" steps that the judge could have taken.
Counsel said that the form and make-up of the camp as represented by the tents was part of the expression and integrity of the protest, which was not intended to be indefinite.
He added: "In the context of the fair hearing, the judge simply accepted what the City wanted and rubber-stamped it.
"We submit this should not have been a rubber-stamping exercise, but a rigorous consideration of the alternatives."
In the High Court, the protesters said that freedom of expression was a liberty which must be jealously guarded by the courts.
The camp did not prevent worship at St Paul's, and any impact it did have on those visiting, walking through or working in the vicinity was not solely detrimental, they argued.
Politicians, members of the public and commentators had expressed support for the camp's presence and the sentiments behind it, at a time when there was a consensus that the issues it raised needed addressing.
Arrangements had been made for sanitation and cleaning, the camp was properly managed and the level of criminal activity within the district had not increased, they said.
The contested appeal hearing is expected to last a day.
The judges reserved their decision on whether to grant permission to appeal until February 22.