Freedom of Assembly

Question 0

Wheeler

Answer 0

Local authorities are free to choose who they let their premises to but this decision may be subject to JR on Wednesbury grounds.

Question 1

DPP v Jones

Answer 1

Citizens may hold peaceful assemblies on the highway without prior consent provided they are reasonable and non-obstructive and are consistent with the primary right of the public to pass and repass. This will give them a lawful excuse to a charge of obstructing the highway.

Question 2

Caesar Gordon

Answer 2

In deciding who they let their premises to, universities are not allowed to take into account threats of public disorder outside the confines of the university by persons not within its control.

Question 3

Champion v CC of Gwent

Answer 3

Police officers may not take part in politics to prevent a police officer doing anything which affects his impartiality or appearance of impartiality.

Question 4

Lowdens v Keaveney

Answer 4

A procession may become a nuisance if the right was exercised unreasonably or with reckless disregard for the rights of others.

Question 5

Kent v MPC

Answer 5

Use of the S.12/13 order under the Public Order Act 1986 is subject to JR but the court does not encourage JR.

Question 6

Lorna Reid

Answer 6

If D wishes to challenge the exercise of the S.14 power under the Public Order Act 1986 this may act as a defence in criminal proceedings.

Question 7

Hubbard v Pitt

Answer 7

An injunction may be granted in respect of public assemblies.

Question 8

Brooke v DPP

Answer 8

Picketers may not force passersby to listen to them since this constitutes an unjustifiable restriction of their liberty; they may only seek to communicate and peacefully persuade.

Question 9

R v Jones

Answer 9

Protesters on private property may be charged with statutory conspiracy contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Question 10

American Cyanamid

Answer 10

An interim injunction may be granted if there is a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favors relief.

Question 11

DPP v Clarke

Answer 11

To be guilty of the S.4/4A/5 offence under the Public Order Act 1986, D must intend or be aware that his conduct IS threatening, abusive or insulting and not that it might be so.

Question 12

Norwood v DPP

Answer 12

The S.4/5 offences do not require that anyone actually suffers harassment, alarm or distress.

Question 13

Brutus v Cozens

Answer 13

Whether an act is insulting is a question of fact for the judge and the definition of insulting is to be understood in its ordinary sense.

Question 14

Jordan v Burgoyne

Answer 14

D must take his audience as he finds them (the Public Order offences will be engaged if his acts are threatening etc to that audience or part thereof).

Question 15

Saidatan

Answer 15

The S.4/5 offences relate to IMMINENT violence or breach of the peace.

Question 16

Homer v Cadman

Answer 16

It is not a defence to a charge of obstructing the highway that only part of the highway was obstructed.

Question 17

Arrowsmith (2 precedents)

Answer 17

It is not a defence to a charge of obstructing the highway that D was only one of a number of protestors obstructing the highway or that D believed, whether based on precedent or otherwise, that she was entitled to hold meetings on the highway.

Question 18

Duncan v Jones

Answer 18

P has the power and duty to prevent the holding of a public assembly if he reasonably apprehends a breach of the peace and if D then holds the assembly he may be arrested for obstructing P in the execution of his duty.

Question 19

Laporte

Answer 19

Police are only entitled to take preventive action against an IMMINENT breach of the peace in the sense it is likely to happen, usually in the immediate future.

Question 20

Austin v MPC (2 precedents)

Answer 20

1. As long as Kettling is necessary, reasonably and proportionate it will not constitute a deprivation of liberty under Art.5.
2. Kettling may be indiscriminately applied if P reasonably believes that was the only way of obviating an imminent breach of the peace.

Question 21

Austin v UK

Answer 21

Restrictions of liberty will not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Art.5 if it is necessary, proportionate and kept to the absolute minimum.

Question 22

Plattform “Arzte fur das Leben” v Austria

Answer 22

The state has a positive obligation to do what is reasonably necessary to facilitate peaceful protest, including measures to prevent disruption of the protest.

Question 23

Ollinger v Austria (2 precedents)

Answer 23

1. Unless there is clear evidence of likely violence an absolute ban on counter-demonstration is not a necessary or proportionate restriction.
2. Policeman and public authorities have a qualified duty to focus their attention on those reacting or threatening to react violently in facilitating peaceful protest.

Question 24

Steel v UK

Answer 24

The English law on breach of the peace meets the requirement of precision in Art.7.

Question 25

E v CC of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2)

Answer 25

The state’s positive obligation to protect the Art.2/3 rights of citizens is not an absolute obligation, but merely one to do what is reasonable and appropriate.

In deciding whether the police discharged its obligation it is proper to defer to the police’s judgment on the ramifications for public security

Question 26

Austin v UK

Answer 26

Commonly occurring restrictions by public authorities on the freedom of movement of citizens, if rendered unavoidable by circumstances beyond the authority’s control, necessary to prevent violence or serious property damage and kept to the minimum required for that purpose, is not a deprivation of liberty under Art.5(1).