Peace campaigner evicted from Parliament Square using new law – Marina Wheeler

17 May 2012 by

R (on the application of Maria Gallastegui) v Westminster City Council [2012] EWHC 1123 (Admin)  – Read judgment

On 27 April 2012, Maria Gallastegui, a peace campaigner and resident of the East pavement of Parliament Square since 2006, lost her legal battle to continue her 24 hour, tented vigil in protest against the folly of war and in particular the UK’s involvement in armed conflict.

The Court’s main task was to construe a new law enacted to bolster the legal armoury available to control long-term protests in the Square.  Section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 – which came into force on 19 December 2011 – gives a local authority the power to stop “prescribed activities” such as using tents (and other structures) to sleep. They are also empowered to seize items used for these prescribed purposes ie the tents.

Previous efforts to remove Ms Gallastegui for blocking the highway, had been unsuccessful. Using the new powers, Westminster City Council proposed to remove Ms Gallastegui, but before it could do so she sought judicial review of the decision.

The heart of the Claim was that the provisions of the Act were incompatible with her rights under Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) to freedom of expression and her rights of peaceful assembly under Article 11. The Court rejected an argument that use of section 143 powers was unreasonable and unlawful as Ms Gallastegui had prior authorisation from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner under different legislation (now repealed) to conduct her vigil until April 2015.  The purpose of an authorisation from the Commissioner was to prevent a demonstration being a criminal act. This did not prevent a local authority controlling the use of tents.

In dismissing these claims, the Court analysed the scope of Articles 10 and 11. It found that the Claimant’s desire to protest in the way she did in Parliament Square did engage both Article 10 and 11 – rights of fundamental importance in a democratic society. However, the statutory provisions complained of did not prevent the effective exercise of these rights

The reason was as follows: unlike certain absolute rights such as the prohibition against torture, Articles 10 and 11 both were qualified rights which permitted restrictions with a cogent legislative object which did not go any further than necessary to achieve that objective. As the time of the passage of the Bill, the government explained the purpose of the measures as being to preserve the unique character of the Square as a World Heritage Site,  visited and enjoyed by many as a cultural experience. Also it noted that it was a busy square and the rights of members of parliament and others had to be considered. In short it considered that “no particular person or group of persons should be permitted to take over the area to the detriment of others”. This, the Court found, was sufficient to justify limiting the Article 10 and 11 rights of others.

The only remaining question was whether the measures adopted were proportionate: ie they restricted the rights no more than necessary to achieve the objective. In finding the measures to be proportionate, the Court distinguished the case of Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence in which the Court quashed a byelaw preventing camping next to the Aldermaston nuclear site. In Tabernacle however, notable differences included the fact that the protest occurred on only one weekend a month and no third party rights were interfered with.

The Claimant argued that use of the section 143 powers to prevent her using her tent would force her to end her protest as she could not afford to travel from her home in Eastbourne each day to stage the protest.  Giving Judgment, Mr Justice Silber appeared unmoved by this submission: the complaint was based on Ms Gallastegui’s own personal circumstances but the fact that a statute might cause unfairness to one person did not justify declaring legislation to be incompatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

In considering whether the measures went further than necessary, the Court was influenced by the fact that another protestor had remained in the square protesting since January 2012 without a tent or sleeping equipment. It also noted that previous powers had been insufficient for the purpose of preventing protesters from sleeping in parliament Square.

Conducting the all-important balancing exercise, the Court ruled that “the area in which the claimant places her tent and makes her home is a public space which should belong to and be accessible to all. It cannot be appropriated by any single person or group such as the claimant who has no proprietary rights in the area she wishes to have as her home. The rights of the public to enjoy and use a place of such significant historical, political and cultural interest as Parliament square cannot be overridden by the claimant’s right to take over part of that square and use it as her home on an indefinite basis even as part of a protest”.

Conclusion

The upshot of the decision is to endorse the position that there is no absolute right to protest whenever and wherever a protester wants. Reasonable restrictions will be upheld “provided they leave ample alternative channels for communication of the ideas and information”

These provisions were not found to destroy the right of the claimant to freedom of expression – they imposed limits which were proportionate and lawful.

Given its facts, this decision is not legally very controversial. However, whether the courts would uphold use of these powers to prevent a shorter-term tented protest remains to be seen.  It can be expected that use of this legislation where it restricts important constitutional rights will be closely monitored in the months to come.

2 comments


  1. James Lawson says:

    Having lived in Kenya Colony in the early 1960s and Rhodesia in the early 1970s I find remarkable similarities between the way in which those territories were governed and administered and the way in which Crown Subjects in the United Kingdom are regarded by officials of the state with exactly same mixture of benevolent paternalism on the one hand and outright suspicion on the other!

    With Greater powers conferred upon Local Authorities under statutes such as RIPA and now the 2011 Act, how long will it be before the head of a local authority in England and Wales becomes a ‘District Commissioner’ in all but name?

    We are all ‘natives’ now!

  2. Stephen says:

    In other words. “Ve haf vays of stopping your protests”

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


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

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: