Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Síða 137

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Síða 137
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 142 International Legal Research Group 143 felt able to rule that their arrest and detention did not comply with English law. Their right to liberty under Article 5 had therefore been violated.41 1.6 Recent Common Law Development 1.6.1 The Test of Imminence: R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Ms Laporte was one among a group of protesters travelling from London to the Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford base in Gloucestershire to take part in an anti- war demonstration. As directed by the respondent chief constable, the coaches were intercepted before arrival, and the passengers were searched. Concluding that some, but not necessarily all, intended to cause a breach of the peace at the demonstration, the police officers conducting the search ordered all protesters to return to their coaches and escorted them back to London. The chief constable maintained that he had information that some of the protesters were members of a group called ‘Wombles’, one of whose recent demonstrations had escalated into serious violence, and that it was therefore likely that a breach of the peace would be committed at RAF Fairford. Ms Laporte brought judicial review proceedings, asserting that the actions of the police constituted unlawful interferences with the exercise of her freedom of expression and assembly, protected by Articles 10 and 11.42 The HL – overturning the Court of Appeal (CA) and finding for Ms Laporte – developed the common law in relation to police powers to prevent breaches of the peace, so that it accords more closely with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Bingham reaffirmed that the test of lawfulness applicable to both the power to arrest and take action short of arrest remained as stated in Albert v Lavin:43 “whether it reasonably appeared that a breach of the peace was about to be committed.”44 In other words, the imminence of the breach of the peace, and not the reasonableness of the police response was the test which would have to be satisfied for the interference to be ‘prescribed by law’ in ECHR terms.45 The test of reasonableness which the DC and the CA had preferred was not established in any previous authorities,46 and was too “uncertain and undefined” – according to Lord Brown – because it “would allow for reduced imminence for lesser restraint … on some sort of sliding scale,” 47 and thus lead to ‘too great an inroad upon liberty’. 48 41 Steel v UK (n 53). For the same reasons, the measures taken against applicants one and two were proportionate, whereas those taken against applicants three, four and five – disproportionate. 42 R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55. 43 Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546. 44 R (Laporte) (n 59) at [39] (Lord Bingham). 45 Mead (n 4) 337. 46 R (Laporte) (n 59) at [47] (Lord Bingham). 47 ibid at [114]-[115] (Lord Brown). 48 ibid. The question of reasonableness is still relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the police decision.49 For Lord Bingham, the police officers’ inference that all of the passengers were likely to cause a breach of the peace at Fairford because some of them were ‘Wombles’ or were found to carry “offending articles” (which were seized) was not reasonable. Neither was the fear of disorder at the air base given that the police had already imposed conditions under section 12 of the POA and had established a sizeable presence so as to be able to identify and arrest individuals who violated them.50 In light of these and other considerations, the Lords decided that “It was wholly disproportionate to restrict [the appellant’s] exercise of her rights under articles 10 and 11 because she was in the company of others some of whom might, at some time in the future, breach the peace.”51 The right to protest is fundamental in a democratic society and so it must not be unnecessarily restricted. According to David Mead, “Laporte mark[ed] a significant change in judicial approach to what is permissible when it comes to policing peaceful protest” and “provided a clear signal to the limits of tolerable pre-emptive action.”52 The police may lawfully arrest or take action short of arrest only when the threat of a breach of the peace is imminent, and only against individual protesters who appear likely to cause it.53 However, when evaluated against the Lords’ decision in Austin three years later, Laporte is far from a landslide victory for the right to protest. The test which was reformulated this time was not one from the common law but from ECtHR jurisprudence on Article 5, namely the test for deprivation of liberty. Arguably, later cases such as Austin,54 have removed from the scope of Article 5 indiscriminate measures of crowd control and legitimised their usage against peaceful protesters and even passers-by. To that extent, it represents an erosion of the protection of the right to protest in the UK. 1.7 Conclusion The last half-century has seen the transformation of the right to protest from a mere common law liberty to a fully-fledged positive right guaranteed both under the common law and the ECHR. Its constitutional elevation has been aided by the passage of the HRA, which imposes a duty on public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights, including Articles 10 and 11. This has not, however, displaced the maintenance of public order as the primary concern of the UK legislature in the context of public protest. To the contrary, the scope of permissible restrictions on the right to protest has widened as the legal powers of the police to arrest or take action short of arrest to prevent breaches of the 49 Mead (n 4) 338. 50 R (Laporte) (n 59) at [55] (Lord Bingham). 51 ibid. 52 Mead (n 4) 340. 53 ibid 348. 54 Austin and Others v UK, no 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09.
Síða 1
Síða 2
Síða 3
Síða 4
Síða 5
Síða 6
Síða 7
Síða 8
Síða 9
Síða 10
Síða 11
Síða 12
Síða 13
Síða 14
Síða 15
Síða 16
Síða 17
Síða 18
Síða 19
Síða 20
Síða 21
Síða 22
Síða 23
Síða 24
Síða 25
Síða 26
Síða 27
Síða 28
Síða 29
Síða 30
Síða 31
Síða 32
Síða 33
Síða 34
Síða 35
Síða 36
Síða 37
Síða 38
Síða 39
Síða 40
Síða 41
Síða 42
Síða 43
Síða 44
Síða 45
Síða 46
Síða 47
Síða 48
Síða 49
Síða 50
Síða 51
Síða 52
Síða 53
Síða 54
Síða 55
Síða 56
Síða 57
Síða 58
Síða 59
Síða 60
Síða 61
Síða 62
Síða 63
Síða 64
Síða 65
Síða 66
Síða 67
Síða 68
Síða 69
Síða 70
Síða 71
Síða 72
Síða 73
Síða 74
Síða 75
Síða 76
Síða 77
Síða 78
Síða 79
Síða 80
Síða 81
Síða 82
Síða 83
Síða 84
Síða 85
Síða 86
Síða 87
Síða 88
Síða 89
Síða 90
Síða 91
Síða 92
Síða 93
Síða 94
Síða 95
Síða 96
Síða 97
Síða 98
Síða 99
Síða 100
Síða 101
Síða 102
Síða 103
Síða 104
Síða 105
Síða 106
Síða 107
Síða 108
Síða 109
Síða 110
Síða 111
Síða 112
Síða 113
Síða 114
Síða 115
Síða 116
Síða 117
Síða 118
Síða 119
Síða 120
Síða 121
Síða 122
Síða 123
Síða 124
Síða 125
Síða 126
Síða 127
Síða 128
Síða 129
Síða 130
Síða 131
Síða 132
Síða 133
Síða 134
Síða 135
Síða 136
Síða 137
Síða 138
Síða 139
Síða 140
Síða 141
Síða 142
Síða 143
Síða 144
Síða 145
Síða 146
Síða 147
Síða 148
Síða 149
Síða 150
Síða 151
Síða 152
Síða 153
Síða 154
Síða 155
Síða 156
Síða 157
Síða 158
Síða 159
Síða 160
Síða 161
Síða 162
Síða 163
Síða 164
Síða 165
Síða 166
Síða 167
Síða 168
Síða 169
Síða 170
Síða 171
Síða 172
Síða 173
Síða 174
Síða 175
Síða 176
Síða 177
Síða 178
Síða 179
Síða 180
Síða 181
Síða 182
Síða 183
Síða 184
Síða 185
Síða 186
Síða 187
Síða 188
Síða 189
Síða 190
Síða 191
Síða 192
Síða 193
Síða 194
Síða 195
Síða 196
Síða 197
Síða 198
Síða 199
Síða 200
Síða 201
Síða 202
Síða 203
Síða 204
Síða 205
Síða 206
Síða 207
Síða 208
Síða 209
Síða 210
Síða 211
Síða 212
Síða 213
Síða 214
Síða 215
Síða 216
Síða 217
Síða 218
Síða 219
Síða 220
Síða 221
Síða 222
Síða 223
Síða 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Beinleiðis leinki

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.