• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Human Rights Act does not apply on the battlefield, says Supreme Court [updated]
Was human rights on battlefield decision binding? »

Parliament Square protesters evicted: analysis of judgment

June 30, 2010 by Adam Wagner

The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010) - Read judgment

The Mayor of London has won a court order to evict a camp of protesters from Parliamentary Square, with the High Court stating that his response to the protest was proportionate and not a breach of the protesters’ human rights.

The protesters have gained a temporary reprieve by appealing the decision, and according to their website have therefore delayed their eviction until at least 4pm on Friday 2 July

As we posted earlier this month, during the build-up to the General Election a number of protesters erected tents and flags in Parliament Square, a green outside the Houses of Parliament. The protesters named the site “Democracy Village”. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, launched an action for possession against the protestors, who he claimed were trespassing on Parliament Square.

No breach of human rights

The protesters made two main arguments in respect of human rights. First, that their Article 6 rights to a fair trial had been breached as they had not had enough time to prepare for the trial. Mr Justice Griffith Williams made short shrift of that argument, saying that:

It is the Court’s duty to keep under review a party’s complaint that his or her Article 6 rights have been breached and I have done so – nothing occurred during the course of the hearing to cause me to revisit my decision to refuse the applications for an adjournment; I was, and remain satisfied that Mr Haw, Mrs Sweet and Mr Holmes were able to address the issues and defend the claims being made against them.

The protesters’ second human rights argument was that stopping the protest would breach their Article 10 (freedom of expression) and/or Article 11 (freedom of assembly) rights. The crucial question for the judge was whether the eviction of the protesters would be proportionate; in other words, whether the public good in preventing the protest would outweigh the restrictions the eviction would place upon the protesters’ rights to protest and free expression.

The Mayor’s action was based on the law of possession. Unless permission is granted, there can be no right to camp or to demonstrate or to do anything prohibited by byelaws, which includes there being no right to impede the lawful use by members of the public who access the square as visitors. (para 104). This is, however, subject to any defence based upon human rights.

Article 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

The right is qualified, however, as is the cases with many of the rights under the Convention. It is possible to restrict the right if that restriction is “prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.“

Article 10, the right to freedom of expression, is similarly qualified, and as such can be restricted if, amongst other things, that restriction is “prescribed by law … necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”.

A protest too far

Mr Justice Griffith Williams ultimately found that the protesters’ rights had not been breached. He said at para 130:

In my judgment, the byelaws are clear in their effect – there is no prohibition on camping, making public speeches and organising or taking part in an assembly; all that is required in authority to do so. That there is no blanket ban is apparent – demonstrations have taken place regularly and the Mayor is prepared to consider a request for camping in appropriate cases … If there should be a need for an urgent and immediate protest, the evidence (paragraph 28), which I accept, is that an application can be made and considered.

The key point for the judge was that the indefinite nature of the protest simply could not be justified when balanced against the problems it had created for other members of the public, even in light of the social importance of some of the issues which were being protested. He said he was satisfied that “there is a pressing social need not to permit an indefinite camped protest on PSG for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others to access all of PSG and to demonstrate with authorisation but also importantly for the protection of health – the camp has no running water or toilet facilities – and the prevention of crime – there is evidence of criminal damage to the flower beds and/of graffiti, as well as other related unlawful activity”

He was also concerned that Democracy Village was “acting as a magnet attracting the homeless who are taking advantage of the lack of control and there is heavy drinking.” He rejected the protesters’ arguments that “camping is a necessary component of their chosen form of protest”, stating that “just as the actions of those who seek to interfere with the exercise of a Convention right must be proportionate, so must the actions of those who exercise such rights.”

One last protest?

The protesters are now lodging their appeals. It seems unlikely, however, that if they are granted permission to petition the Court of Appeal that they will find more success there.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams addressed the protesters’ human rights arguments with respect, but he was also entirely unconvinced that a protest of this nature and scale could justify the semi-permanent occupation of a prominent piece of public land. The rights of the campers to protest and free expression had to be balanced against those of the general public.  The judge was also clearly concerned at problems with hygiene and crime which had arisen. These are more practical problems which could potentially be remedied, but they must be considered as part of the question of proportionality.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams ultimately made clear that his decision did not amount to a blanket restriction on citizens’ rights to protest, either generally or on Parliament Square itself. Rather, this particular protest had gone too far and for too long, and must therefore be brought to an end.

Read more:

  • Democracy Village: Peaceful protest under human rights law
  • Emma Norton, a legal officer at Liberty, provides an excellent analysis of the law of peaceful assembly

Rate this:

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Art. 10 | Freedom of Expression, Art. 11 | Freedom of Association, Case comments, In the news, Politics / Public Order | Tagged Democracy village, human rights | Leave a Comment

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 9,414 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • The Fat Tax - Daniel Barnett - Dale & Co. February 9, 2012
    • Case Law: Axel Springer v Germany, Grand Chamber finds violation of Article 10 – Sara Mansoori February 9, 2012
    • Supreme Court decision on Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust - Hempsons February 9, 2012
    • T, R (on the application of) v Greater Manchester Police & Anor [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin) (09 February 2012) February 9, 2012
      Student fails in human rights challenge to Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate with warning incurred when he was 11 for theft of 2 bicycles
    • Strasbourg Rulings on Two Personal Privacy Claims February 8, 2012
    • Open Justice « 2drj February 8, 2012
    • Wigs off, jeans on at the Judicial College | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk February 8, 2012
    • Contempt laws are still valid in the internet age | Dominic Grieve February 8, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • T, R (on the application of) v Greater Manchester Police & Anor [2012] EWHC 147 (Admin) (09 February 2012) February 9, 2012
      Student fails in human rights challenge to Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate with warning incurred when he was 11 for theft of 2 bicycles
    • Othman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSIAC B1 (6 February 2012) February 8, 2012
      Terrorist suspect Abu Qatada granted bail on strict conditions. However, Secretary of State must show evidence of progress in his deportation in next 3 months then deprivation of liberty will no longer be justifiable.
    • AT v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 42 (07 February 2012) February 7, 2012
      Control order of member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ruled unlawful as wasn't given enough information about case against him as mandated in A v UK
    • Moussaoui, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 126 (Admin) (03 February 2012) February 6, 2012
      Detention of Mentally ill foreign criminal pending deportation was unlawful as regular reviews not carried out. Given damages of £1
    • Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 48 February 1, 2012
      Investigator Glen Mulcaire loses self-incrimination appeal against order that he should reveal phone hacking clients.
    • D and S, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council [2012] EWHC 17 (Admin) (12 January 2012) January 31, 2012
      Chalenge by 2 elderly disabled people to £17m adult social care cuts by Manchester City Council fails. Consultation and regard to equality duties adequate.
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • RT @SkyNewsBreak: David Cameron has spoken to King Abdullah of Jordan to try to extradite radical cleric Abu Qatada 51 minutes ago
    • RT @daniel_barnett: Here's what I REALLY think about the Stott case - http://t.co/gCIHyevb. @AdamWagner1 also has excellent piece at htt ... 1 hour ago
    • Congrats to @1crownofficerow's Martin Forde QC, to fill Judicial Appointments Commission vacancy left by Lord Sumption http://t.co/wu7yVWAx 2 hours ago
    • RT @INFORRM: Case Law: Axel Springer v Germany, Grand Chamber finds violation of Article 10 - Sara Mansoori http://t.co/r5pBIQU3 2 hours ago
    • ... would have found that but for case law! Mr Justice Parker inviting Court of Appeal / Supreme Court to bite the bullet here 3 hours ago
    • ... also gives permission to appeal. Wld have found scheme "provides no mechanism for review.. disproportionate.. not compatible with A8.".. 3 hours ago
    • ... police warning were for theft of 2 bicycles when 11, student now 20. High Court judge "reluctantly" finds no breach of article 8... 3 hours ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • Abu Qatada relased on “very restrictive” bail conditions February 9, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Please stow your rights in the overhead compartment February 9, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Hospital had human rights duty to protect voluntary patient from suicide, rules Supreme Court February 8, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Libya employee can sue for dismissal in UK February 8, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Times contempt challenge thrown out in Strasbourg February 8, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Indefinite detention: not very British February 8, 2012 freemovement
    • UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts? February 7, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Axel Springer and Von Hannover: Grand Chamber victory for media – Inforrm February 7, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com. Fonts on this blog.

Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,414 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.