Helga Law Journal

Ukioqatigiit
Ataaseq assigiiaat ilaat

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 134

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 134
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 138 International Legal Research Group 139 of Parliament for which the police had not been notified, but which nevertheless took place without authorisation.12 It is likely that these provisions were specifically aimed to apply to Brian Haw’s “permanent peace protest” against the Iraq War in Parliament Square.13 In assessing the operation of SOCPA in its seventh report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) referred to the prosecutions of the peace campaigners Maya Evans and Milan Rai for organising an unauthorised demonstration contrary to section 132 of SOCPA. The Divisional Court (DC) upheld their convictions, citing the ECtHR rulings in Ziliberberg v Moldova and Rassemblement Jurassien Unité v Switzerland that “subjecting peaceful demonstrations to a prior authorisation procedure does not encroach upon the essence of the Article 11 right.”14 Despite this, the JCHR concluded that the SOCPA provisions in question were “unjustifiable and disproportionate interferences with the Convention rights to freedom of expression and assembly.”15 Confident that adequate measures of policing protest around Parliament already exist under the POA, the JCHR recommended that sections 132-138 of SOCPA be repealed, and Parliament duly did so in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. A rather negative recent development is the bringing of charges against protesters for offences not intended to apply to the regulation of protest. These include the offence of aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, anti-social behaviour orders and anti- harassment injunctions.16 Until its repeal in 2012, section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was also used against peaceful demonstrators. It allowed a chief police officer to designate areas where the police may stop and search people and vehicles for “articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism,” without needing to have any ground for reasonable suspicion.17 The whole of Greater London had been designated as such an area.18 The JCHR considered that while “there may be circumstances where the police reasonably believe… that a demonstration could be used to mask a terrorist attack or be a target of terrorism,” stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act should not be applied in a blanket manner against peaceful protesters.19 12 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Demonstrating Respect for Rights? A Human Rights Approach to Policing Protest (seventh report) (hereinafter JCHR seventh report) at [40]; Section 137 also made the unpermitted use of loudspeakers in the designated area a criminal offence. 13 Mead (n 4) 148; Haw’s ‘peace camp’ opposite Carriage Gates began in 2001 and lasted for almost ten years, blocking the main vehicle entrance to the House of Commons. His loudspeakers had been audible inside parliamentary buildings: JCHR seventh report (n 19) at [111]. 14 Rassemblement Jurassien Unité v Switzerland App no 8191/78 (ECtHR, 10 October 1979). 15 JCHR seventh report (n 19) at [114]. 16 David Mead, ‘Dropping the case against the Fortnum protesters is not as interesting as their charges of aggravated trespass. This is yet another threat to the freedom to protest’ (Blog post from London School of Economics and Political Science, 25 July 2011). 17 In Gillan and Quinton v UK App no 4158/05 (ECtHR, 12 January 2010) the ECtHR ruled that section 44 was incompatible with Article 8 ECHR. 18 JCHR seventh report (n 19) at [41]. 19 ibid. at [92]. 1.4 Breaches of the Peace and Permissible Restrictions on Protest Under the Common Law The statutory framework outlined in the previous section is complemented by common law principles guarding the balance between the protection of the exercise of the right to protest and the prevention of public disorder. Arguably, the common law power – in fact duty – of police officers to enter and remain on private premises without warrant, to arrest, or to take action short of arrest so as stop or prevent actual or anticipated breaches of the peace,20 has proved so broad as to “defea[t] any claim as to the existence of a ‘right.’’’21 In Thomas v Sawkins, it was established that as “part of [his] preventive duty,” “a police officer has ex virtute officii full right” not only to enter premises to stop a breach of the peace which was taking place at the moment of his intervention, but also “when he has reasonable ground for believing that an offence is imminent or is likely to be committed.”22 In the same vein, in Duncan v Jones, Lord Hewart CJ held that when a police officer “reasonably apprehended a breach of the peace … [it] became his duty to prevent anything which in his view would cause that breach of the peace,” even in the absence of any unlawful conduct.23 Until the turn of the millennium, this decision was used in cases brought by protesters against whom the police had exercised their powers to stop or prevent breaches of the peace, or who had been bound over by magistrates to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour.24 Seemingly further widening the scope of permissible restrictions on the right to protest, in R v Morpeth Ward Justices ex parte Ward the DC held that “it is not necessary to show that that person put anyone in bodily fear if his disorderly conduct would have the natural consequence of provoking others to violence.”25 In Nicol v DPP, a group of at most ten protesters were bound over for disrupting an angling competition by throwing sticks into 20 Breach of the peace was defined in R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383 as ‘harm … actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his presence, his property or is put in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance’. 21 Salát (n 9) 15. 22 The appellant had addressed a public meeting at The Caerau Library Hall in Glamorgan to protest against the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. The venue had been privately hired for the event, and the police had been repeatedly refused entry. The DC agreed with the Glamorgan justices that the ‘police officers had reasonable grounds for believing that, if they were not present at the meeting, there would be seditious speeches and other incitements to violence and breaches of the peace would occur’: Thomas v Sawkins [1935] 2 KB 249, 252-255. 23 Neither the appellant, Mrs Duncan, nor anyone else present at the public meeting held in front of the unemployed training centre in Deptford, ‘committed, incited or provoked any breach of the peace’. However, when Mrs Duncan had spoken at a public meeting at exactly the same venue the previous year disturbance had taken place. This was sufficient evidence on which the police officer could base his ‘reasonable apprehension’ that a breach of the peace would be committed again this time if he did not arrest Mrs Duncan upon her refusal to discontinue the meeting: Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218, 223 (Lord Hewart CJ) (emphasis added). 24 Mead (n 4) 329. 25 R v Morpeth Ward Justices ex parte Ward [1992] 95 Cr App R 215 was a judicial review of a decision of a magistrates’ court to bind over protesters who ‘invaded a field where a pheasant shoot was in progress, shouting and swearing in an attempt to stop the shoot’ (emphasis added).
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108
Qupperneq 109
Qupperneq 110
Qupperneq 111
Qupperneq 112
Qupperneq 113
Qupperneq 114
Qupperneq 115
Qupperneq 116
Qupperneq 117
Qupperneq 118
Qupperneq 119
Qupperneq 120
Qupperneq 121
Qupperneq 122
Qupperneq 123
Qupperneq 124
Qupperneq 125
Qupperneq 126
Qupperneq 127
Qupperneq 128
Qupperneq 129
Qupperneq 130
Qupperneq 131
Qupperneq 132
Qupperneq 133
Qupperneq 134
Qupperneq 135
Qupperneq 136
Qupperneq 137
Qupperneq 138
Qupperneq 139
Qupperneq 140
Qupperneq 141
Qupperneq 142
Qupperneq 143
Qupperneq 144
Qupperneq 145
Qupperneq 146
Qupperneq 147
Qupperneq 148
Qupperneq 149
Qupperneq 150
Qupperneq 151
Qupperneq 152
Qupperneq 153
Qupperneq 154
Qupperneq 155
Qupperneq 156
Qupperneq 157
Qupperneq 158
Qupperneq 159
Qupperneq 160
Qupperneq 161
Qupperneq 162
Qupperneq 163
Qupperneq 164
Qupperneq 165
Qupperneq 166
Qupperneq 167
Qupperneq 168
Qupperneq 169
Qupperneq 170
Qupperneq 171
Qupperneq 172
Qupperneq 173
Qupperneq 174
Qupperneq 175
Qupperneq 176
Qupperneq 177
Qupperneq 178
Qupperneq 179
Qupperneq 180
Qupperneq 181
Qupperneq 182
Qupperneq 183
Qupperneq 184
Qupperneq 185
Qupperneq 186
Qupperneq 187
Qupperneq 188
Qupperneq 189
Qupperneq 190
Qupperneq 191
Qupperneq 192
Qupperneq 193
Qupperneq 194
Qupperneq 195
Qupperneq 196
Qupperneq 197
Qupperneq 198
Qupperneq 199
Qupperneq 200
Qupperneq 201
Qupperneq 202
Qupperneq 203
Qupperneq 204
Qupperneq 205
Qupperneq 206
Qupperneq 207
Qupperneq 208
Qupperneq 209
Qupperneq 210
Qupperneq 211
Qupperneq 212
Qupperneq 213
Qupperneq 214
Qupperneq 215
Qupperneq 216
Qupperneq 217
Qupperneq 218
Qupperneq 219
Qupperneq 220
Qupperneq 221
Qupperneq 222
Qupperneq 223
Qupperneq 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.