The court considered the validity of bye-laws used to exclude protesters from land near a military base at Aldermarston.
Held: The byelaw which banned an ‘camp’ was sufficiently certain, but not that part which sought to ban any person who wished to ‘attach anything to, or place any thing over any wall, fence, structure or other surface;’ ‘the words used in Byelaw 7(2)(g) prohibit a visitor from sitting on a fixed bench and placing a pullover over the seat or the back of the bench, or a hiker from stopping at the monument and placing a rucksack on a convenient surface at the base of the structure. There would need to be strong justification for a ban on such apparently innocuous activities. ‘ That restriction was too wide to be justifiable.
Maurice Kay LJ, Walker J
[2008] EWHC 416 (Admin), Times 09-Apr-2008
Bailii
Military Lands Act 1892 14(1), Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston Byelaws 2007, European Convention on Human Rights 10(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Staden v Tarjanyi 1980
The court considered the validity of a byelaw. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘to be valid, a byelaw, carrying as this one does penalties for infringement, must be certain and clear in the sense that anyone engaged upon the otherwise lawful pursuit . . must . .
Cited – Percy and Another v Hall and Others QBD 31-May-1996
There was no wrongful arrest where the bylaw under which it was made was invalid. The question is the belief of the arresting officers. The effect of retrospective legislation is not always fully worked through. English law provides no cause of . .
Cited – Tod-Heatley v Benham 1888
What was ‘annoyance’ between neighbours
The court considered how to construe a covenant in a lease ‘nor do or wittingly or willingly cause or suffer to be done any act, matter, or thing in or upon or about the said premises, which shall or may be or grow to the annoyance, nuisance, . .
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 – Nash v Finlay 1902
The court considered the validity a byelaw. It was challenged for being unclear. It provided that: ‘No person shall wilfully annoy passengers in the streets.’ Other byelaws in the same instrument proscribed more specific forms of ‘annoyance’.
Cited – Staden v Tarjanyi 1980
The court considered the validity of a byelaw. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘to be valid, a byelaw, carrying as this one does penalties for infringement, must be certain and clear in the sense that anyone engaged upon the otherwise lawful pursuit . . must . .
Cited – Ziliberberg v Moldova ECHR 1-Feb-2005
The court observed that: ‘the right to freedom of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society and, like the right to freedom of expression, is one of the foundations of such a society.’ it is possible to distinguish between interferences . .
Cited – Gaweda v Poland ECHR 14-Mar-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
The court considerd the meaning of the phrase ‘prescribed by law’: . .
Cited – Chorherr v Austria ECHR 25-Aug-1993
The applicant was one of two arrested demonstrating against the Austrian armed forces at a military parade. They had rucksacks on their backs, with slogans on them. The rucksacks were so large that they blocked other spectators’ view of the parade. . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Armed Forces
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.266109