The free speech of protesters should not be curtailed simply because of the unlawful behaviour of one or two individuals. The court considered that ‘that the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly – in this instance a demonstration that had not been prohibited – is of such importance that it cannot be restricted in any way, even for an avocat, so long as the person concerned does not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion.’
A refusal to give evidence was an issue ‘which in itself does not come within the ambit of Articles 10 and 11’.
Judges:
R. Ryssdal, P
Citations:
[1991] ECHR 29, 11800/85, (1992) 14 EHRR 362
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Huma Rights 10
Cited by:
Cited – Singh, Regina (on the Application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police CA 28-Jul-2006
Sikh protesters set out to picket a theatre production which they considered to offend their religion. The respondent used a existing ASBO dispersal order which had been obtained for other purposes, to control the demonstration.
Held: The . .
Cited – Laporte, Regina (on the application of ) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire HL 13-Dec-2006
The claimants had been in coaches being driven to take part in a demonstration at an air base. The defendant police officers stopped the coaches en route, and, without allowing any number of the claimants to get off, returned the coaches to London. . .
Cited – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 3-Apr-2012
(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165118