Distributed Demonstration not within 1986 Act
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at the scene of which Superintendent McMillan was present on the day so that there was no power to impose a condition under section 14 of the 1986 Act: ‘a public assembly’ must be in a particular location to which the public or any section of the public has access, which is wholly or partly open to the air, and which location can be fairly described as a ‘scene’. The situation here was that there were several locations, and the officer issuing the order was not physically present, and if his assertion that the area was Greater London, then he was not the most senior officer in that area.
‘a public assembly in section 14 must be in a location to which the public or any section of the public has access, which is wholly or partly open to the air, and which can be fairly described as a scene. Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if co-ordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not one public assembly within the meaning of section 14(1) of the 1986 Act.’
Where there is already a claimant or claimants with standing to bring judicial review, there is no reason to accord standing to additional parties: ‘it is important to remind parties of the need to ensure that those who bring claims for additional review are limited to those best placed to bring the claim. This is because adding unnecessary claimant is likely to increase the costs of the litigation, if only by requiring solicitors to send out extra reports on the litigation. It is also because parties to an action are in a distinct position, for example by receiving a confidential draft of the judgement of the time when it is circulated to the parties for typographical and other corrections before it is handed down in court.’
Lord Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain
[2019] EWHC 2957 (Admin), [2019] WLR(D) 617, [2020] HRLR 2, [2020] 1 WLR 519
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD
Public Order Act 1986 14(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kamara v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1973
The ingredients of the offence of conspiracy are complete once there is agreement between two or more persons. An overt act is not itself an ‘element’ of the conspiracy.
There is a crime of unlawfully assembling in such a manner as to disturb . .
Cited – Kent v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis CA 15-May-1981
The Court dismissed a challenge brought on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to a condition imposed under section 3(3) of the 1936 Act prohibiting all processions in the Metropolitan Police District. . .
Cited – Saleem v Secretary of State for Home Department CA 13-Jun-2000
A rule which deemed service on an asylum applicant two days after postage of a special adjudicator’s determination irrespective of whether it was in fact received was outside the powers given to the Secretary, and is of no effect. The Act gave power . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones Admn 2002
The Divisional Court upheld a condition imposed under section 14 of the 1986 Act which prescribed permitted entrance and exit points for an assembly. . .
Cited – Austin and Another v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis QBD 23-Mar-2005
The claimants had variously been attending a demonstration in London, or passing through. The police detained them in a cordon for several hours. They sought damages. No unlawful acts were alleged against them.
Held: There was no deprivation . .
Cited – Brehony, Regina (on the Application Of) v Greater Manchester Police Admn 23-Mar-2005
The claimant challenged a condition imposed by the chief officer of police under section 14(2)(b) prohibiting his group from holding an assembly at a particular location.
One ground of challenge was a failure to give adequate reasons, as to . .
Cited – Moos and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Commissioner of the Police of The Metropolis Admn 14-Apr-2011
The claimants, demonstrators at the G20 summit, complained of the police policy of kettling, the containment of a crowd over a period of time, not because they were expected to to behave unlawfully, but to ensure a separation from those who were. . .
Cited – Jukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 16-Jan-2013
Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster . .
Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .
Cited by:
Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Judicial Review
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.643844