Article 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly

Question 1

What was the legitimate aim in Cisse v. France?

Answer 1

Protection of health and morals - a two moth protest began to raise serious hygiene concerns.

Question 2

What is the common law definition of trespass?

Answer 2

An ‘unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another’.

Question 3

Which statute defines aggravated trespass? What is the defnition?

Answer 3

s.68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. ‘Intimidate, interrupt or obstruct people carrying out a lawful activity’.

Question 4

Name the 6 public order offences giving their relevant subsections in the Public Order Act 1996 where relevant.

Answer 4

s. 1 Riot
s. 2 Violent disorder
s. 3 Affray
s. 4 Fear of provocation or violence
s. 4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress
s. 5 harassment, alarm or distress

Question 5

Discuss two advantages of Article 11.

Answer 5

Advantages:
- State will receive a wide margin of appreciation so long as they have taken reasonable steps - advantageous as it recognises the differing cultures and moralities of member states whose interpretation of the convention rights may differ - law is fluid in this respect - though may lead to highly arbitrary laws that undermine the Art 11 right - e.g. Russia’s recent law that allows the detention of participants of an unauthorised public assembly.

• Guarantees the right to form and join a group e.g. trade unions - also right to not join a trade union - further advantage is closed shops are prohibited under the right (Young v. UK) - furthermore Article 11 seeks to protect the right to join a political party - (Redfearn v. UK) - could be said to compliment Article 10 in upholding political expression - in this case, Article 11 was said to prevent ‘unlawful discrimination on grounds of political opinion’.

Question 6

Discuss two disadvantages of Article 11.

Answer 6

Disadvantages:
- Common law transgression of breach of the peace has the tendency to conflict with Articles 11, 10 and 5 due to its loosely defined nature and large jurisdiction given to the police - however, any interference, by the police, with the right on these grounds is scrutinised to ensure there has been no undue interference - e.g. R (Laporte) v. Gloucestershire Police - no evidence to imply a breach of the peace was imminent.

• State has positive obligations to protect the right to peaceful assembly and thus must take steps to prevent violence against protestors (Plattform v. Austria) - not a guarantee of safety however - furthermore Art 11. does not allow a group to protest where they choose - however, the courts are eager to uphold this right - E.g. Tabernacle v. Defence Secretary (Banning camping case).