The appellants sought leave to appeal against an order for possession of Parliament Square on which the claimants had been conducting a demonstration (‘the Democracy Village’).
Held: Leave was refused save for two appellants whose cases were remitted for reconsideration. The appellants had had a fair trial, having been given extra time to prepare their cases. Though the common law might also assist the Mayor in his claim, it was in fact decided by the statutes which implied the necessary rights. The defendants should have the right to express the views which they wish to express; similarly, there is no doubt that they should enjoy the right to assemble together, which rights are specifically protected by, respectively, articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The appellants activities fell within the protection of those article. However the rights are also subject to limits. Those limits were prescribed by the law, and the judge had considered them correctly and applied them.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR said: ‘The right to express views publicly, particularly on the important issues about which the defendants feel so strongly, and the right of the defendants to assemble for the purposes of expressing and discussing those views, extends to the manner in which the defendants wish to express their views and to the location where they wish to express their views. If it were otherwise, these fundamental human rights would be at risk of emasculation. Accordingly, the defendants’ desire to express their views in Parliament Square, the open space opposite the main entrance to the Houses of Parliament, and to do so in the form of the Democracy Village, on the basis of relatively long-term occupation with tents and placards, are all, in my opinion, within the scope of articles 10 and 11.’
Neuberger MR, Arden, Stanley Nurnton LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2010] WLR (D) 195, [2011] 1 WLR 504
Bailii, WLRD
Greater London Authority Act 1999 384, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Gardens Byelaws 2000 3, European Convention on Human Rights 10 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Richard Roe, On The Several Demises of Elizabeth Haldane And Thomas Urry, v William Harvey 1769
The production of a deed establishing an estate in the land is necessary to support an action of ejectment of a defendant from land. . .
Cited – Harper v Charlesworth 1825
A claim to eject somebody from land must be supported by a deed establishing ownership of an interest in the land. . .
Cited – West Bank Estates Ltd v Arthur PC 1967
(From Federal Supreme Court of the West Indies) A claim was made for possessory title to a strip of land, based upon acts of cultivation, the cutting of timber, wood and grass, fishing and growing rice. The trial judge disallowed the claim to a . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimant sought a possession order to recover land from trespassers. The court considered whether a possession order was available where not all the land was occupied, and it was feared that the occupiers might simply move onto a different part. . .
Cited – Hill v Tupper 1-May-1863
The canal company had by deed granted the sole right to use the canal for pleasure boats to the plaintiff. The defendant disturbed that right by using the canal for the same purpose.
Held: The claim failed. The right under the contract was not . .
Cited – Asher v Whitlock CEC 3-Nov-1865
Possession of land is in itself a good title against anyone who cannot show a prior and therefore better right to possession. A possession which is wrongful against the true owner can found an action for trespass or nuisance against someone else. A . .
Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 18-Jan-1999
. .
Cited – Georgeski v Owners Corporation SP49833 22-Nov-2004
Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales) REAL PROPERTY – Crown lands – licence granted by Crown over site of jetty and slipway on bank of tidal river – nature of rights created – whether jetty and slipway are . .
Cited – University of Essex v Djemal and others CA 1980
Students occupied the administrative office part of university premises. Following an order for possession of that part, they moved to a part known as Level Six. The university then sought an order for possession of the whole of its premises. Just . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock CA 31-Jul-2009
The court considered the status in law of ‘demoted tenants’, those who had been secure social housing tenants, but who had only limited security after being found to have behaved anti-socially. The tenant had been refused an opportunity by the . .
Cited – Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence CA 5-Feb-2009
The claimant sought judicial review to test the validity of the bye-laws which prohibited them from camping on public land to support their demonstration.
Held: The bye-laws violated the claimant’s right to freedom of assembly and of . .
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Another CA 30-Oct-2008
The Council appealed a finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to obtain without notice injunctions to control the behaviour of youths said to be creating a disturbance, including restricting their rights to enter certain parts of the city . .
Cited – Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .
Cited – Stoke-On-Trent City Council v B and Q (Retail) Ltd HL 1984
The defendants had been trading on Sundays in breach of s.47 of the Shops Act 1950, which, by s.71(1) imposed on every local authority the duty to enforce within their district the provisions of that Act. Parliament has given local authorities a . .
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 – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd CA 18-Apr-1988
An injunction had been granted to restrain Bovis from causing a noise nuisance outside certain hours specified in a notice served by the council under the 1974 Act which created a criminal offence ‘without reasonable excuse’ to contravene the . .
Cited – Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
Appeal from – The Mayor of London v Hall and Others QBD 29-Jun-2010
The Mayor sought possession of land outside Parliament occupied for some considerable time by the defendant protesters. . .
Cited by:
Cited – City of London v Samede and Others QBD 18-Jan-2012
The claimant sought an order for possession of land outside St Paul’s cathedral occupied by the protestor defendants, consisting of ‘a large number of tents, between 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, many of them used by protestors, either . .
Cited – The Mayor Commonalty and Citizens of London v Samede (St Paul’s Churchyard Camp Representative) and Others CA 22-Feb-2012
The defendants sought to appeal against an order for them to vacate land outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London which they occupied as a protest.
Held: The application for leave to appeal failed. The only possible ground for appeal was on the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.420801