Article 11 Flashcards
What does A11 protect?
- Freedoms of peaceful assembly
- Freedoms of association with others
- The right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests
Article 11 is also a collective right what does this mean?
Protects the rights of individuals to join together with others in collective action.
What will the EctHR use to decide if the interference with the right is justified?
‘proportionality and the margin of appreciation’
A11 is both a positive and negative right- what case held this was the case
Plattform Artzte fur das Leben v Austria
Explain the case Plattform Artzte fur das Leben v Austria
Facts: association of doctors campaigning against abortion, who organised a religious service and a march to the surgery of a doctor who carried out abortions.
Police attended the demonstration to prevent violence (although eggs were thrown at protestors)
Ratio: the positive obligation on the state isn’t a guarantee of safety. Whilst there is a right to counter-demonstrate sometimes the state must interfere to protect its citizens and maintain order.
Explain the case that declared a group cannot assemble wherever a group wishes
Appleby v UK
Facts: applicants weren’t allowed to assemble in a shopping centre when protesting against developments in their town
Ratio: no violation had occurred the decision had been proportionate.
Explain the case that said Assembly can be refused if it will infringe on the rights of the public BUT the restriction must be proportionate:
A totally peaceful protect can still be disbanded without violation of A11
Cisse v France
Facts: protestors demonstrating in a church about immigration status bu did not interfere wit those wishing to attend the service
Ratio: there was no violation of A11 when the police stopped the sit-in after 2 months due to serious risk to health and sanitation.
True of false: the state cannot put a ban on assemblies
True, but it may however require demonstrators to seek authorisation in advance of the assembly.
Explain the Brian haw case about assemble around parliament
Brian Haw challenged the government when they made the Serious Organised Crimes and Police Act 2005 which banned protest in the vicinity of Parliament Square.
The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was designed to restore the rights to non-violent protests near Parliament whilst still protecting Parliament Square. There are certain prohibited activities in the areas surrounding Parliament which includes use of loud-speakers without permission, erecting a tent or other structure on Parliament Square and sleeping over-night.
Explain the case that said a demonstration must be peaceful
DPP v Jones (Margaret)
Facts: peaceful protest next to Stonehenge. Some protestors carried banners and the officer in charge told them to move on but some remained and were convicted
Ratio: the appeal was allowed under A11 because they didn’t reasonably interfere with the highway and the protest was peaceful.
Explain the case Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence
Facts: tabernacle was a member of a women’s peace camp which led peaceful assembly each month ear the atomic weapons establishment. The group has done this for 23 years until a new bylaw put a ban on camping
Ratio: CoA said the restriction was disproportionate because the manner and form the protest took (the weekend camp) was the whole essence of the protest.
What does freedom of association with others guarantee
the right to come together and form a group or association (but it also protects the right not to have to join a group too – Young, James and Webster v UK)
Explain the case that says A11 doesn’t include the right to spend time with people
McFeeley v UK
Facts: claimants were convicted of offences relation to anti-terror legislation in Northern Ireland and were serving time in prison. The prison regulations kept hem away from other inmates
Ratio: this wasn’t a violation of A11
Explain the case that found political parties have been found to be an association
Redfearn v UK
Facts: bus driver was dismissed from his job when he joined the BNP and became a council member
Ratio: EctHR held that the very essence of A11 was violated. The UK has an obligation to make sure the law protected his right to join a political party.
True or false: Trade unions haven’t been recognized as an association.
False, Trade unions have also been recognized as an association. The state can restrict the right if it is justified.
Restrictions under A11(2) what must an interference be?
- Prescribed by law
- Have a legitimate aim (national security ,prevention of disorder and crime
, protection of health and morals ,for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others) - Be necessary in a democratic society(proportionate and margin of appreciation)
How did R v Howell define a breach of peace
“An act done or threatened o be done which either hears a person, or in his presence his property, or is likely to cause such harm, or puts someone in fear of such harm being done”
Explain the case that said Police have powers to stop of prevent a breach of the peace
R (on application of Laporte v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary
Facts: passengers on a coach heading for an anti-war protest to a RAF base were stopped by the police and ordered to return to London under a police escort. The police claimed this was to prevent a breach of the peace
Ratio: appeal allowed no evidence that a breach of the peace was imminent their actions were disproportionate
What did the case of moos v cpm say about kettling
Police must be in reasonable apprehension of an ‘immediate breach if the peace’ before taking this action it only as a last resort if the situation is about to descend into violence.
High court: the police had unlawfully used Kettering in this case
What did the case of Austin v cpm say about kettling
HoL considered that if the measures were resorted to in’ good faith, were proportionate and enforced for no longer than was necessary there would be no violation
What other breach was establish in hicks v cpm
A5 requires judicial supervision is available , but should not make it impracticable for the police to maintain public order. SC held the measures were proportionate in the circumstances, were not arbitrary and therefore not in breach
What is the definition of trespass to land
Intrusion onto another persons land “unjustified interference with land which is in the immediate an exclusive possession of another”
What does s61 criminal justice and public order act 1994 allow the police to do
direct trespassers from land after copier has sued them to leave buy has failed, if they have damaged land, threatened occupier or have more than 6 vehicles
What is aggravated trespasser under s68 of criminal justice and public order act
Trespasses on land and prevents lawful activity of others (obstructing them, intimidating them)
Explain the case of Edward Bauer v dpp
Facts:
Appellants appealed a decision of the district judge convicting them of aggravated trespass after fortune and mason project
Ratio: prosecution maintained that all protestors were guilty when the intimidating acts took place (even if they weren’t individually doing anything) because they intended to intimidate).
What does s70 of criminal justice and public order act allow
Chief police officer can apply for an order prohibiting the holding of al trespassers assemblies (if on land without permission and will result in serious disruption)
What qualifies as squatting under s144 legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders act 2012
• Is in a residential building as a trespasser
• Knows/ought to know he is trespassing
• Is living in the building/ intends to live there
Using violence to enter a premises for the purposes of squatting is a crime under Criminal Law Act 1977.
How is a riot defined in s1 of the public order act 1986
1(1) where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot
How is violent disorder defined in the public order act 1986 under section 2?
2(1) where three or more persons who are present together use or threatened unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the person is using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder
How is the offence of affray defined in section 3 of the public order act 1986
3(1) A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety
How is the offence of fear or provocation of violence defined in section 4 of the public order act 1986
4(1) A person is guilty of this offence if he –
A) uses towards another person threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
Or
B) distribute or displays to another person any writing sign or other visible representation which is threatening abusive or insulting with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked
How is the offence of causing intentional harassment alarm or distress defined under section 4 A of the public order act 1986
4 A (1) A person is guilty of an offence, with intent to cause a person harassment alarm or distress, he –
A) uses threatening abusive insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour,
Or
B) displays any writing sign or other visible representation which is threatening abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment alarm or distress
How is the offence of harassment alarm or distress defined under s5 of the public order act 1986
5(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he –
A) uses threatening [or abusive close square bracket words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour or
B) displays any writing sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive ] within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress thereby
