Public order MCQs Flashcards
The committee of the British legion in a provincial town has been informed by the local police that its members are being charged for committing an offence under s. 11(7) of the Public Order Act for failing to give notice of its procession to the local war memorial on Remembrance Day, which took place five days ago. The committee is very surprised about this as they have never contacted the police about this event in any preceding years.
Which one of the following statements best describes the lawfulness or otherwise of the police’s actions under the Public Order Act, and the reasons for this?
The police’s actions are not lawful as the committee does not need to inform the police of any event if an equivalent event has happened at any time in the past.
The police’s actions are lawful because all public processions have to be justified by their organisers in advance, in case scarce public resources need to be expended in supervising or controlling them.
The police’s actions are entirely justified as the committee has clearly failed to give the police advance written notice of the procession in accordance with its duty under s. 11(1).
The police’s actions are not lawful as the committee will have an exemption from the duty to give the police notice of this type of traditional or customary procession.
The police’s actions are not lawful in this situation as the committee is protected by an exemption for processions relating to the military services.
The police’s actions are not lawful as the committee will have an exemption from the duty to give the police notice of this type of traditional or customary procession.
Correct. Remembrance Day processions and ceremonies would be considered exempt from the duty in s. 11 as they are processions “commonly or customarily” held in the police area.
Following a particular serious period of political repression in a foreign country, involving serial human rights abuses, a campaign group has begun to organise regular protest marches to the London embassy of the state involved. Large groups of protestors, including refugees from the state, have begun to chant protest songs and to shout abusive slogans at embassy staff who are entering or leaving the building. The situation becomes so heated that embassy staff now come in and out of the compound in embassy cars. There has been no other form of disorder, however.
The police have now responded by only allowing three demonstrators at any one time to congregate outside the embassy, claiming that they are entitled to do this because the protestors’ actions are intimidatory towards embassy staff.
Which one of the following statements best describes the lawfulness or otherwise of the police actions in relation to its powers under the Public Order Act?
The imposition of conditions by the police complies with the spirit of the legislation as the behaviour of the demonstrators is intimidatory but the police are only allowed to impose conditions on the place and duration of assemblies of individuals and not on their maximum size.
The imposition of conditions by the police is lawful as the behaviour of the demonstrators is clearly intimidatory in nature.
The police’s actions are unlawful as they have the effect of restraining the freedom of speech of the demonstrators, which is a fundamental and absolute right they enjoy under both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The police’s actions are unlawful as they are only allowed to impose conditions on assemblies when there are overriding concerns about the safety of the public at large and not that of individuals who may be targeted for hostility.
The police’s actions appear to be unlawful as the effect of the protestors’ allegedly intimidatory behaviour was not sufficiently intense to prevent the staff from leaving and entering the embassy entirely.
The police’s actions appear to be unlawful as the effect of the protestors’ allegedly intimidatory behaviour was not sufficiently intense to prevent the staff from leaving and entering the embassy entirely.
Correct. The wording of s. 14(1) only allows conditions such as this to be imposed where the intimidatory behaviour is sufficiently hostile to compel other persons not to do something that they are entitled to, such as entering the embassy. Here the staff have still been able to enter the embassy.
A group of seven young men, who were intending to attend an England football match at Wembley, were arrested by police outside the stadium before the match and taken to the local police station. They were identified from information provided by police in their local town who had strong evidence to suggest that they were intending to attack fans of the opposing national team before the match started. They were subsequently released an hour after the end of the match. They were told that this action had been necessary to prevent a breach of the peace.
At the same time, two other men were also arrested in order to prevent a breach of the peace after a police officer heard them shouting abuse in the direction of supporters of the opposing national team.
Which one of the following provides the best combination of advice to the two groups?
The police use of the common law power to arrest to prevent an alleged breach of the peace does not appear to have been lawful in the case of either group of arrested men.
It is likely that the arrest of the two men was a legitimate use of the police’s common law power to prevent a breach of the peace as they were witnessed shouting abuse at opposing football fans. However, the arrest on the same basis of the seven men does not appear to have been lawful as there does not seem to have been an impending threat of violence.
The police’s use of the common law power to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace appears to have been entirely legitimate in the case of both groups of arrested men.
The only basis on which the police are authorised to arrest individuals in this type of situation is if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a specific statutory offence has been committed. Both sets of arrest were therefore unlawful.
It is likely that the arrest of the seven men was a legitimate use of the police’s common law power to prevent a breach of the peace. However, the arrest on the same basis of the two other men does not appear to have been lawful as there seems not to have been an imminent threat of violence.
It is likely that the arrest of the seven men was a legitimate use of the police’s common law power to prevent a breach of the peace. However, the arrest on the same basis of the two other men does not appear to have been lawful as there seems not to have been an imminent threat of violence.
Correct. In relation to the seven men, the evidence suggested that there was a likely threat of violence towards others and that there was a reasonable apprehension of this being imminent. The two men may have been abusing opposing fans but there was no suggestion that they were about to cause physical harm to them and so their arrest does not appear to have been a legitimate use of these police powers.
A trainee journalist is keen to write an article about a march in a large English city, which has been arranged by an organisation protesting against what it sees as inadequate government action to combat climate change. The organisers have given notice to the local police and certain conditions have been imposed including a specific route which is designed to ensure that marchers detour around the central shopping area of the city in order to avoid disruption to the life of the community.
The organisers at the head of the march decide not to obey these instructions, however, and despite loud-hailer warnings from police officers at the scene, march down the central shopping street. The journalist is unable to extricate herself from the large crowd, as it filters through the narrow street, and she is arrested along with a number of others for failing to comply with a condition under section 12 of the Public Order Act.
Which of the following represents the best advice to her?
The journalist will be guilty of an offence of failing to comply with a condition imposed on a procession by the police, as she was informed along with others that the march was taking an unapproved route.
The journalist can defend herself against the charge by arguing that, even though she knew that she was part of a march which was processing down a forbidden route, the matter was outside her control, as she was unable to extricate herself from the crowd.
The journalist can argue that she was the victim of the unlawful police tactic of ‘kettling’ once the march entered the narrow shopping street in the centre of the city, meaning that she had been unjustifiably deprived of her liberty.
The journalist will be guilty of an offence for taking part in what became a trespassory assembly once the march took an unapproved detour.
The journalist can defend herself against the charge by showing that she was not one of the organisers of the march.
The journalist can defend herself against the charge by arguing that, even though she knew that she was part of a march which was processing down a forbidden route, the matter was outside her control, as she was unable to extricate herself from the crowd.
Correct. Under s. 12(5) POA this defence would be available to her.
It has come to the attention of the chief police officer in a large provincial city that a pressure group, campaigning to save sites of Victorian heritage, is planning an occupation of the local botanical gardens. This is after news emerges that the local authority is seeking to demolish the gardens’ Palm House, on the basis that it would cost too much to keep it in the state of repair necessary to allow the public to continue to visit. The pressure group has now confirmed that it will occupy the whole of the town’s park and botanical gardens on the next bank holiday Monday and that it would also congregate in the Palm House, now closed to the public, and occupy it for as long as possible.
The police are contemplating imposing conditions on the proposed demonstration and/or a ban on any form of assembly in the Palm House on the day in question.
Which one of the following provides the best advice to the police in relation to its powers under the Public Order Act?
It will be possible for conditions to be imposed under s. 14A in relation to the place, duration and maximum number of attendees in the park and botanical gardens, as long as the police can show that the group’s activities may give rise to serious disruption to the life of the community. However, it will not be possible under s. 14 for the police to impose a ban on any form of assembly inside the Palm House.
It will be possible for conditions to be imposed under s. 14 in relation to the place, duration and maximum number of attendees in the park and botanical gardens, as long as the police can show that the group’s activities may give rise to serious disruption to the life of the community. However, it will not be possible for the police to impose a ban on any form of assembly inside the Palm House.
It will be possible for the police to impose conditions in relation to the place, duration and maximum number of attendees in the park and botanical gardens, and also to ban any assembly in the Palm House, as long as they can show that these events may give rise to serious disruption to the life of the community.
The police cannot impose restrictions or conditions in advance on planned assemblies but will be able to impose a ban on the proposed occupation of the Palm House as this is situated indoors and so is more manageable and containable as a security measure.
The police have no powers to impose conditions on assemblies and are therefore prevented from imposing even more draconian measures such as outright bans on assemblies.
It will be possible for conditions to be imposed under s. 14 in relation to the place, duration and maximum number of attendees in the park and botanical gardens, as long as the police can show that the group’s activities may give rise to serious disruption to the life of the community. However, it will not be possible for the police to impose a ban on any form of assembly inside the Palm House.
Correct. The police have powers under s. 14 to impose conditions on assemblies but not under s. 14A to ban trespassory assemblies unless (inter alia) the assemblies are taking place on land wholly “in the open air”.
Question 1
A woman is taking part in a march through the high street of a town in England. The march is protesting against plans that the Government published two days ago to build
a new prison in the town. The march was scheduled to take place during the visit of
the government minister responsible for prisons to the town, which was only announced yesterday. The woman learnt about the march from a leaflet that was put through the letter box of her home. She has been arrested for taking part in an illegal procession.
Is the woman guilty of an offence?
A Yes, because the organisers of the march did not give six clear days’ notice of the march. The march is therefore illegal.
B Yes, because a march during the controversial visit of a government minister is likely to cause serious disruption to the life of the community.
C No, because although the organisers have committed an offence by failing to give six clear days’ notice, the march itself is not illegal.
D No. As it was not reasonably practicable to give advance notice of the march, the organisers have not committed an offence and in any event the march itself is not illegal.
E No. Although the organisers have committed an offence by failing to give six clear days’ notice, she has not committed an offence as she had no knowledge of this omission.
Answer
Option D is correct. Under s 11(1) POA 1986 organisers of a public procession (march) must give the police six clear days’ notice if it is for any of the purposes specified in the section. Protesting against a new prison comes within these purposes. However, if it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession, there is no duty to give the notice. Here, the march seems to be an immediate response to the announcement of the new prison and coincides with the visit of the responsible government minister. If the organisers had given six clear days’ notice, they would have missed the minister’s visit. Option D is thus a better answer than option C, as option C sets out what the position would have been had the duty to give notice applied. Option E is wrong as the marches remain legal even when the organisers should have given notice; the knowledge of the marchers whether notice has been given is irrelevant.
Option A is wrong because, as stated above, the march remains legal even if a notice should have been given. As regards option B, whilst the prospect of serious disruption to the life of the community may give the police grounds for imposing conditions on the march, it does not render the march itself illegal.
Question 2
A group of about 100 demonstrators have gathered in a square outside a town hall protesting against a local authority’s cuts to library services. The time is nearly 17.00
when many of the local authority’s workers will be leaving the town hall and some of
them normally walk through the square on their way home. Most of the demonstrators are chanting slogans such as ‘Save our libraries’ and ‘Down with the council’, but there has been no violence. A police sergeant, supervised by her inspector, are the only police at the scene. The inspector orders the demonstrators to disperse in the next 15 minutes to ensure that the workers can go home without any trouble.
Which of the following best describes whether the inspector’s order is lawful?
A As the senior police officer is present, she can impose a condition requiring the protesters to disperse as the demonstrators’ behaviour will clearly intimidate the local authority’s workers.
B She has common law powers to order the demonstrators to disperse as she has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace will occur.
C Although the inspector is the senior police officer present, she cannot impose conditions on the protest as she does not have reasonable grounds for believing that the demonstrators’ behaviour will intimidate the local authority’s workers.
D The inspector does not have any common law powers to order the demonstrators to disperse, even though she has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace will occur.
E Although the inspector does have common law powers, they only empower her to arrest the demonstrators and not to order them to disperse.
Answer
Option C is correct. As the senior police officer present at the scene, the inspector does have the power under s 14(1) POA 1986 if she reasonably believes that the assembly will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community, or the purpose of the organisers is to intimidate others with a view to compelling them not to do something that they have a right to do, or to do something that they have
a right not to. However, based on Police v Reid, it seems unlikely that the organisers have intimidatory purpose, and the protest seems unlikely to lead to serious disruption. Moreover, the noise levels seem unlikely to have a significant impact on those in the vicinity or cause serious disruption to the activities of an organisation. For that reason option A is wrong.
The police do have common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace that can be used to disperse meetings, so option D is wrong. However, option B is wrong because on the facts there are no grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace as defined in R v Howell,
as the conduct of protesters seems unlikely to result in violence. Option E is wrong because the common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace are not limited to arrest, but can include a direction to disperse.
Question 3
A local authority has issued a notice prohibiting trespassory assemblies within the vicinity of a well-known landmark. A group of about 25 protesters have, with the permission of the farmer who owns the land, gathered on farm land within the area covered by the notice and within the time frame specified in it. The farmer said they could remain on the land as long as they did not camp on it. The police arrested the protesters for taking part in a trespassory assembly after they put up tents on it.
Which of the following best describes whether the protesters are guilty of an offence relating to trespassory assemblies?
A They are guilty because they have taken part in an assembly in the area covered by the notice.
B They are guilty because they have taken part in an assembly on private land in the area covered by the notice.
C They are guilty because they put up tents, breaking the terms of the permission given by the farmer.
D They are not guilty because the farmer gave them permission to be on the land, so they are not trespassers.
E They are not guilty because the farmer gave them permission to be on the land, and they have not threatened to breach the peace.
Answer
Option C is correct. Under s 14A the local authority has the power, with the Home Secretary’s consent, to prohibit an assembly likely to be held without the permission of the occupier of the land or to conduct itself in such a way as to exceed the limits of any permission granted by the occupier. As long as the protesters remain within the limits of the farmer’s permission, the assembly is not trespassory. However, once they put up tents they have exceeded the limits
of the permission. Options A and B are wrong as they define the type of land covered by a prohibition notice too widely.
Options D and E are wrong because the protesters have exceeded the limits of the farmer’s permission.
Question 24
A political party decides to hold a meeting in the central square of a provincial city. One of its leaders is expected to make a speech which will annoy many members of the local population.
Which of the following statements best describes the powers of the police in this situation?
A. The Chief Constable may impose conditions in relation to the meeting in order to prevent serious disorder.
B. The organisers must obtain permission to hold the meeting from the Chief Constable.
C. The Chief Constable can prohibit the meeting if he has insufficient resources to police it.
D. The meeting can only be regulated by the police if more than 200 persons attend.
E. Any police officer can insist that the meeting cease.
A - The Chief Constable may impose conditions in relation to the meeting in order to prevent serious disorder.
