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 which Bean J said: ‘It seems to me that a distinction is to be drawn – and Mr Hossein-Bor accepted this – between a direction given under section 14(2((a) and a direction given under section 14(2)(b). A direction under section 14(2)(a) is given on the spot in relation to an assembly ‘being held’ by the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene. Mr Hossein-Bor accepted that in those circumstances the duty to give reasons does not arise. If the officer says, ‘Stand on the other side of the footpath’, and the demonstrators ask why, the answer may be, quite lawfully, ‘Because I say so’. But the position is different, in my judgment, under section 14(2)(b). Parliament has drawn a distinction between an on-the-spot decision and a decision ‘in relation to an assembly intended to be held’. In the latter case the direction must be given personally by the chief officer of police and must be given in writing.’
Judges:
Bean J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 640 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Public Order Act 1986 14(2)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn 6-Nov-2019
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.224525