Public Order Law Flashcards
Public processions
Part II of the POA deals with public processions and assemblies.
Section 11(1) POA requires written notice to be given of any proposal to hold a public procession
for any of the three following purposes:
(a) To demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of
persons;
(b) To publicise a cause or campaign; or
(c) To mark or commemorate an event,
unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession.
To be ‘public’, processions must take place ‘in a public place’ (see s 16 POA for a definition of
public place).
Section 11(1): Advance notice
Under s 11(1) POA, organisers of public processions must give a minimum of six clear days’ notice
of the date, time and route of the procession. (Failure to do so amounts to an offence under s
11(7).)
The rationale behind the provision is to allow the police to consider public order issues in advance
of the event, and to give directions to prevent public disorder.
124 Public Law II
Some processions will be exempt from the advance notice requirement. Section 11(2) provides for
an exemption ‘where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or
areas) in which it is proposed to be held or is a funeral procession organised by a funeral director
acting in the normal course of his business’.
In Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69 the House of Lords held that the
monthly mass cycle rides (known as ‘Critical Mass’) that had occurred in London since 1994
amounted to a ‘commonly or customarily held’ procession and thus, the rides were exempt from
the notice requirement. This was despite the fact that the routes varied on each occasion and the
nature of the events was spontaneous.
Section 12: Conditions on processions
Section 12(1) POA gives the police powers to impose conditions upon a public procession, if the
senior police officer reasonably believes that:
(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to
the life of the community,
(aa) in the case of a procession […], the noise generated by persons taking part in the
procession may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are
carried on in the vicinity of the procession,
(ab) in the case of a procession […] —
(i) the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a relevant impact on
persons in the vicinity of the procession, and (ii) that impact may be significant, or
(b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to
compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not
to do.
Section 12: Powers and scope
In relation to the four potential risks outlined in s 12(1) the senior police officer ‘may give directions
imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to
him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, impact or intimidation’.
* Note that subsections (aa) and (ab) apply only to processions in England and Wales.
* The term ‘senior police officer’ is defined in s 12(2).
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has introduced a number of specific
instances into the POA in which s 12(1) is seen to be engaged:
* See ss 12(2A) to (2E) inclusive.
* For example, these include ‘delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers’ and
‘noise generated by persons taking part in a procession’.
Section 12(3) stipulates that, where a condition is imposed in advance of the procession, it must
be in writing.
Case law on conditions under s 12 POA
In relation to s 12(1)(b), it is important to note that intimidatory behaviour must be of a degree
intended by the organisers of the procession to compel another person to act against their will.
The same test applies under s 14(1)(b) in relation to assemblies. On this point, please refer to the
case of Police v Reid [1987] Crim LR 702, discussed in relation to s 14 later in this chapter.
Case law also indicates that the senior police officer must provide sufficient reasons to the
organisers of a procession for the need to impose conditions upon it. This procedural obligation
can be drawn by extension from cases applying under s 14 in relation to assemblies.
On this point, please refer to the case of R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
Police [2005] EWHC 640 (Admin), discussed in relation to s 14 later in this chapter
Offences and defences under s 12 POA
The following offences and defences arise under the following sub-sections of s 12 POA:
(4) A person who organises a public procession and fails to comply with a condition imposed
under this section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the failure
arose from circumstances beyond his control
(5) A person who takes part in a public procession and fails to comply with a condition
imposed under this section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the
failure arose from circumstances beyond his control.
(5A) A person is guilty of an offence under subsection (4) or (5) only if—
(a) in the case of a public procession in England and Wales, at the time the person fails to
comply with the condition the person knows or ought to know that the condition has been
imposed;
[…]
(6) A person who incites another to commit an offence under subsection (5) is guilty of an
offence.
Sanctions under s 12 POA
The following subsections of s 12 POA indicate the applicable sanctions (in England and Wales):
(8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard
scale or both.
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine
not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(10) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the
standard scale or both […]
Section 13: Power to prohibit processions
Section 13(1) POA gives the chief police officer the power to apply for a prohibition order from the
local authority if he or she:
reasonably believes that, because of particular circumstances existing in any district or part
of a district, the powers under section 12 will not be sufficient to prevent the holding of public
processions in that district or part from resulting in serious public disorder […]
Such orders cannot exceed three months and the local authority will be required to obtain the
consent of the Home Secretary (s 13(2)). The local authority may either make the order in the
terms requested by the police or with any ‘modifications’ approved by the Home Secretary.
Note that a local authority does not have the power itself to initiate a prohibition.
Section 13 also provides for offences and sanctions concerning the breach of prohibition orders
which are similar to those found in s 12.
Prohibiting processions in London
Section 13(1) POA does not apply to processions in London, where an application to the relevant
local authority is not required.
Section 13(4) POA provides that a prohibition order can be made by the Commissioner of Police
for the Metropolis (or the Commissioner of Police for the City of London) if they reasonably
believe that, as with s 13(1), orders under s 12 will not be sufficient to address concerns over
serious public disorder in their police area
Case law and examples: Prohibition orders
As with the imposition of conditions, prohibition orders can be challenged by applying for judicial
review.
Kent v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1981] 5 WLUK 116 concerned older provisions in the
Public Order Act 1936 that were equivalent to s 13 POA. The applicant, Bruce Kent, who was the
General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, challenged an order banning all
processions (other than religious ones) for 28 days over the entirety (786 square miles) of the
metropolitan police district. He was effectively challenging the breadth of the ban, given that
many of these processions were entirely peaceful.
The police’s case was that there was a risk of serious disorder arising from National Front marches
and Anti-Nazi League counter demonstrations. Although there was some concern over the police
evidence relating to the extent of the risk, the Court of Appeal did not accept that there were no
reasonable grounds for making the order; the challenge to the lawfulness of the general ban
therefore failed. This reflects the unwillingness of the court to disturb operational decisions, seen
to be within the core competence of the police, in relation to matters of public safety and
security.
Given the blunt nature of the power in s 13 to ban processions generally, these have been
sparingly applied.
A further example of the measure can be seen following the August 2011 riots in London, when the
then Home Secretary Theresa May, approved a prohibition order banning all public processions
within five London boroughs for a period of 30 days.
The reason given was to prevent a planned march by the far-right English Defence League in
Tower Hamlets. The order covered a much wider geographical area than the proposed route of the
march. The Home Secretary justified this on the grounds that the march might spill over and give
rise to the risk of violence in other areas.
At the time, there was some criticism of the breadth of the order in some parts of the press.
Public assemblies
The POA also regulates ‘public assemblies’ under s 14.
Under s 16 POA, as amended by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (which reduced the number
of participants required from 20 to 2), a public assembly is a meeting comprising two or more
persons in a public place that is ‘wholly or partly open to the air’.
Note, however, that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has introduced a new
concept under the POA of a ‘one-person protest’. See s 14ZA for the circumstances in which
police powers of control can be exercised over individual persons – which are largely geared
towards noise disruption – and the extent of those powers.
It is also important to note two differences applying to s 14 when compared with the regulation of
public processions under s 11(1) POA:
* The purpose of the assembly is irrelevant.
* There is no obligation to give advance notice of a public assembly to the police.
Section 14 POA: Conditions on assemblies
Section 14(1) POA gives the police powers to impose conditions upon public assemblies, if the
senior police officer reasonably believes that:
(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to
the life of the community,
(aa) in the case of an assembly […], the noise generated by persons taking part in the
assembly may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried
on in the vicinity of the assembly,
(ab) in the case of an assembly […] —
14: Public order law 127
(i) the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may have a relevant impact on
persons in the vicinity of the assembly, and (ii) that impact may be significant, or
(b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to
compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not
to do
Section 14: Powers and scope
In parallel with powers under s 12, the senior police officer may, under s 14(1A), impose conditions
on those organising and attending assemblies if they appear to him necessary to prevent the
risks of disorder, damage, impact or intimidation. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act
2022 has also introduced into the POA a number of specific instances in which s 14(1) is seen to be
engaged – see ss 14(2A) to (2E) inclusive.
Section 14(3) stipulates that, where a condition is imposed in advance of the assembly, it must be
in writing.
The police do not have powers to instigate or make a prohibition order, banning assemblies in the
same way they do (under s 13) with regard to processions. However, the powers under s 14 can still
be effective. For example, the police are able to impose short time limitations on a meeting or
maximum attendance limits.
These powers must be used in a proportionate manner, however, as indicated by the inclusion of
the necessity requirement in s 14 POA (and s 12). In parallel, the police must use their powers with
respect to assemblies and processions, in a way that complies with their duty under s 6 HRA.
Note that s 14 also provides for offences and sanctions which are similar to those found in ss 12
and 13.
Case law: Assemblies – intimidation?
Section 14(1)(b) enables the police to impose conditions on an assembly if the senior police officer
has reasonable belief that the organisers are intending to intimidate others.
In relation to this provision, it has been held that intimidatory behaviour must be sufficient to
‘compel’ the target not to do something, as required by the wording of the Act.
In Police v Reid (Lorna) [1987] Crim LR 702, protesters, taking part in an anti-apartheid
demonstration outside the South African High Commission in London, shouted at guests as they
arrived and chanted: ‘apartheid murderers, get out of Britain’.
The court held that the police Inspector had applied the wrong test by defining intimidation as
‘putting people in fear or discomfort’ whereas, under the correct test, the pprotestors would have
needed to intend to compel the guests not to go into South Africa House.
Case law: Reasonable belief
The case of R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2005] EWHC 640
(Admin) provides useful guidance on both the substance of s 14 controls on assemblies and the
procedural requirements.
The claimant and others had held regular demonstrations for four years outside Marks &
Spencer’s in Manchester city centre as part of a group which encouraged shoppers to boycott the
store because of its alleged support for the Israeli government. Counter demonstrations had also
appeared. The Chief Constable imposed temporary conditions on the group over the Christmas
period, including requiring it to move its demonstration away from the busy city centre shopping
area to the local ‘Peace Gardens’.
The group challenged whether the Chief Constable did have reasonable belief under s 14(1), and
similarly, whether the conditions imposed were proportionate in terms of its rights under articles
10 and 11 ECHR. It was unsuccessful on both points.
The court held that the Chief Constable’s decision to use s 14 was not unreasonable or irrational,
as he required a belief that an intended public assembly might result in the consequences
outlined in s 14(1)(a), not that they necessarily would. It was also held that the conditions imposed
were proportionate, as they represented temporary and limited restrictions on rights and were
designed to achieve the legitimate aim of preventing serious disruption in the city centre.
