SBAQ - PUBLIC ORDER Flashcards
An environmental group are holding a protest which involves blocking the main ring road around Midchester. Traffic is at a standstill and some of the motorists are becoming frustrated and angry. The police are called and Sergeant Green and Inspector Li attend.
Is the following statement TRUE or FALSE?
As the senior police officer present at the scene Inspector Li will be able to place conditions on the protest if the criteria in s14 Public Order Act 1986 are satisfied.
True
False
the statement is true. The ‘senior police officer’ in advance of a public assembly or procession is the Chief Constable or Commissioner of Police. Once the assembly or procession is underway, the ‘senior police officer’ is the most senior officer who is present at the assembly or procession. Here, Inspector Li is of a higher rank than Sergeant Green and is the senior police officer on the scene.
The following facts are relevant to questions 2-4:
Kwasi is the leader of the Monarchist Tendency (‘MT’), a group that campaigns for the restoration of an absolute monarchy in the UK. MT plans to hold a protest march in Newlands North, the Prime Minister’s constituency, as the Prime Minister vehemently denounced the MT’s views last week.
The marchers are planning to march past the offices of the Global Party (fictitious), the party which the Prime Minister leads.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
Kwasi must give the police reasonable notice of the date, time and route of the proposed procession.
Kwasi must give the police at least six clear days’ notice of the date, time and route of the proposed procession.
Kwasi is under no obligation to give notice as it is not reasonably practicable to do as the Prime Minister’s denunciation of MT is very recent.
Kwasi is under no obligation to give notice as the requirement to give notice interferes with his right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 ECHR.
Option B is correct. Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 (‘POA 1986’) requires organisers of public processions to give six clear days’ notice to the police of the event’s location and routes that the procession will follow unless this is not reasonably practicable. Option A is wrong as s 11 sets out a specific number of days’ notice that organisers must give. Option C is wrong as it is practicable to give notice, as the march does not appear to be an immediate response to the Prime Minister’s denunciation of the MT; hence it is possible to give the notice.
Although the requirements of the POA 1986 do engage Article 11(1) – freedom of assembly, the requirement to give notice is justifiable. Article 11 is a qualified right and may be interfered with on various grounds, such as national security, public safety or for the prevention of disorder, provided the interference is proportionate. The notice requirement seems proportionate.
Assume that the police become aware of MT’s proposed march before it starts. The chief officer of police for the police force in which Newlands is located has received credible intelligence reports that a violent fringe of MT’s membership intends to storm the Global Party’s offices and set it on fire during the march.
Which one of the following is CORRECT?
The chief officer of police may give directions banning the march due to the threat to national security.
The chief officer of police must give directions banning the march due to the threat to national security.
The chief officer of police may give directions ordering the march to take a route that does not go past the Global Party’s offices.
The chief officer of police cannot take any action at this stage but must ensure there are enough officers available to deal with any disturbances that arise.
C is correct. Section 12 of the POA 1986 grants the chief officer of police the power to give directions imposing conditions on a public procession if they reasonably believe it will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the organisers have an intimidatory purpose.
The MT protestors are planning to march past the offices of the Global Party, against whose leader (the Prime Minister) they are protesting. Consequently, the Chief Constable, as the chief officer of police, may reasonably believe that the purpose of the organisers is intimidation. If so, the directions regarding the route are lawful. Option D is therefore clearly wrong as the chief officer of police does have the power to take action.
Options A and C are wrong as the chief officer of police does not have the power to ban marches. Section 13 of the Public Order Act does empower the chief officer of police to apply to the local council for an order prohibiting public processions in particular circumstances. There is no evidence of any such banning order in this scenario.
Assume that the marchers agree to avoid the Global Party’s offices and the march takes place peacefully. When the march ends, about 100 protestors gather in a nearby public park and Kwasi starts a speech in which he abuses the Prime Minister. The protestors start to chant, ‘String him up! String him up!’ When some Global Party officials enter the park on their way home after leaving the offices, the protestors make threatening gestures towards them.
Sergeant Pearson and PC Ross are watching the events unfold.
Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
PC Ross may order the protestors to leave the park within the next 10 minutes.
It is unlikely that the police are able to take any action to end the protest.
Sergeant Pearson may order the protestors to leave the park within the next 10 minutes.
The police officers at the scene must urgently contact the chief officer of police for the Newlands area to obtain permission to order the protestors to disperse.
C is correct. Section 14 of the POA 1986 empowers the senior police officer at the time a public assembly is taking place to impose conditions as to the assembly’s duration if they reasonably believe it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community, or that the organisers have a purpose of intimidation. Once the march has ended, it will have turned into a public assembly as defined by s 16.
In the light of Kwami’s abusive speech and the protestors’ chants and gestures, it is likely that there are reasonable grounds for believing they have an intimidatory purpose. Options B and D are therefore wrong as the senior police officer at the scene does have power to take action. However, option A is wrong as, even if the requisite conditions are satisfied, PC Ross is not the most senior police officer present at the scene. Sergeant Pearson ranks above PC Ross, so PC Ross does not have the authority to impose conditions on the assembly.
The local branch of the Save the Badger group is holding a vigil in front of the town hall to call on the government to stop culling badgers. The vigil begins on Sunday evening. A rival group, Halt the Spread, has gathered on the opposite side of the street to oppose them. Tessa leaves her flat above where the Halt the Spread group has gathered and joins them. The Save the Badger group start shouting at them to ‘Go away!’ The Halt the Spread group has been infiltrated by anarchists who break into a shop and steal some eggs. They hand one to Tessa and she and others throw them across the road. One Save the Badger supporter is hit in the eye. The police arrive and arrest Tessa for breach of the peace. Tessa claims that her arrest is unlawful as it breaches her rights under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
The police cannot lawfully arrest Tessa using their breach of the peace powers as any breach was caused by the Save the Badger group who were shouting at Halt the Spread.
The police may have breached Tessa’s rights under Article 11 ECHR if they did not act proportionately.
The police are unable to use their breach of the peace powers as a breach of the peace would only have occurred if the owners of the damaged shops had been present at the time.
Tessa’s Article 11 ECHR rights will not be breached as they only protect the right to peaceful assembly.
D is correct. Tessa has thrown an egg and so has breached the peace herself, thus option A is wrong. Although the shop-owners are not present, the violence appears to have resulted in harm as one of the Save the Badger supporters is hit in the eye. A breach of the peace has occurred (R v Howell), so option C is wrong. Article 11 only protects peaceful protests and, as Tessa’s protest is not peaceful, option B is wrong.
A district council has lawfully banned a trespassory assembly within four miles of a national monument.
Is the following statement TRUE or FALSE?
As the result of the ban, protestors are banned from protesting on any public highway in the area covered by the ban.
True
False
the statement is false. In DPP v Jones the House of Lords held that a public highway was a public place that the public might enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity being carried out did not amount to a public or private nuisance and did not unreasonably obstruct the highway. Accordingly, peaceful, non-obstructive short-term protests on public highways are lawful.
The government has introduced legislation into Parliament requiring dogs to be walked on leads at all times when in public places. Nathan has given notice to the police that he intends to hold a march through the centre of Milnerton on Saturday afternoon protesting against this legislation .
The Chief Constable of the police force responsible for Milnerton is concerned about Nathan’s plans as the march is taking place on a Saturday afternoon. It may therefore cause a few short traffic jams and make it harder for people to get to the shops.
Which one of the following statements is WRONG?
The Chief Constable has insufficient grounds to apply to the local authority for the march to be banned.
The Chief Constable has insufficient grounds to give the marchers directions to avoid the town centre.
The Chief Constable can give the marchers directions to avoid the town centre on the basis of the serious disruption to the life of the community the march will cause.
The highest ranking police officer present at the time may give directions regarding the route of the march at the time it takes place if sufficient grounds exist.
option C is the option that should be selected, as all the other options are correct. The march will be a public procession as it is taking place on the highway which is a public place under s 16 POA 1986. The Chief Constable, as the chief officer of police and accordingly the senior police officer in advance of the march, will be able to place conditions on the march if he reasonably believes that it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community or the organisers have intimidatory purpose (s 12 POA 1986). He is concerned that there will be short traffic jams and shoppers may be inconvenienced, but this is unlikely to amount to ‘serious disruption…’ Option B therefore sets out the position accurately, while option C is wrong as the Chief Constable does not have sufficient grounds.
If the Chief Constable reasonably believes his powers to impose conditions would be insufficient to prevent serious public disorder, he may seek an order from the local authority banning all processions or a class of processions, subject to obtaining the Home Secretary’s consent. This would cover Nathan’s march but there are no grounds for believing there might be serious public disorder. Option A therefore sets out the position accurately.
If on the day of the march any of the conditions set out in s 12 are met, the senior police officer may give directions to the marchers regarding its route. During the march, the highest ranking police officer at the scene will be the senior police officer and so will have the power to give directions. Accordingly, option D is accurate.
No Airport Here (‘NAH’) is a group protesting against the building of a new airport near the town of Middlewich. Fifteen members of NAH plan to hold a protest rally outside the local town hall at the time the Planning Committee of Middlewich Council is considering the planning application for the airport. Airport in Middlewich (‘AIM’) is a group which is in favour of building the airport. It has threatened to disrupt NAH’s rally.
Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
1. The senior police officer cannot impose conditions in advance of NAH’s meeting.
2. The senior police officer can impose conditions on NAH’s meeting if he reasonably believes that it will result in public disorder.
3. The senior police officer can ban NAH’s meeting if he reasonably believes that the conditions he could impose would not prevent serious public disorder.
4. The senior police officer has no power to ban NAH’s meeting.
option D is correct. The senior police officer can only ban meetings which are trespassory assemblies and must apply to the local authority for an order prohibiting them. In any event, NAH’s meeting will only be attended by 15 people – 20 or more are needed for a trespassory assembly. This means option C is wrong. Option A is wrong – the police can impose conditions in advance of the meeting or at the time. Option B is wrong as there needs to be a risk of serious public disorder.
- 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?
1. Yes, because the organisers of the march did not give six clear days’ notice of the march. The march is therefore illegal.
2. Yes, because a march during the controversial visit of a government minister is likely to cause serious disruption to the life of the community.
3. No, because although the organisers have committed an offence by failing to give six clear days’ notice, the march itself is not illegal.
4. No, because 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.
5. 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.
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, while 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.
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?
1. As the senior police officer present, she can impose a condition requiring the protestors to disperse as the demonstrators’ behaviour will clearly intimidate the local authority’s workers.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Although the inspector does have common law powers, they only empower her to arrest the demonstrators and not to order them to disperse.
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 which they have a right to do, or to do something which 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. 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. 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 protestors 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.
A local authority has issued a notice prohibiting trespassory assemblies within the vicinity of a well-known landmark. A group of about 25 protestors 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 protestors for taking part in a trespassory assembly after they put up tents on it.
Which of the following best describes whether the protestors are guilty of an offence relating to trespassory assemblies?
1. They are guilty because they have taken part in an assembly in the area covered by the notice.
2. They are guilty because they have taken part in an assembly on private land in the area covered by the notice.
3. They are guilty because they put up tents, breaking the terms of the permission given by the farmer.
4. They are not guilty because the farmer gave them permission to be on the land, so they are not trespassers.
5. They are not guilty because the farmer gave them permission to be on the land, and they have not threatened to breach the peace.
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 protestors 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 protestors have exceeded the limits of the farmer’s permission.
A farmer is participating in a trial of genetically modified wheat on his farm. A group of 25 anti-GM protestors have gathered on the farm in an empty field next to the farm shop. The farmer has called the police saying he fears visitors to the farm shop will be discouraged from buying his produce by the protestors. The police attend and tell the protestors that they must disperse within the next 15 minutes or they will be arrested.
Are the actions of the police lawful?
1. Yes, because the demonstration is being held without the permission of the landowner.
2. Yes, because the police gave the protestors 15 minutes to disperse so their actions are proportionate.
3. Yes, because the demonstration amounts to a trespassory assembly since it consists of more than 20 people.
4. No, because the police do not reasonably fear that a breach of the peace will occur.
5. No, because the demonstration will not result in serious disruption to the life of the community.
D is the correct answer. In these circumstances the police will only be able to disperse the demonstrators if they reasonably fear a breach of the peace. The farmer says he fears that visitors to the shop will be discouraged from buying his produce, but this does not amount to fear of harm sufficient for a breach of the peace.
Option A is wrong as the police cannot disperse protestors from private land unless a crime is being committed or there is a breach of the peace. Neither is taking place on the facts.
Option B is wrong. If the police had power to disperse the protestors then their actions would probably be proportionate, but they have no such power.
Option C is wrong since to be a trespassory assembly the demonstration would need to result in serious disruption to the life of the community or significant damage to the land, building or monument which is of historical, archaeological or scientific importance. In addition, the local authority would need to make a banning order.
Option E is wrong since the demonstration is not a public assembly as it is not taking place in a public place as the demonstrators are in a field next to the farm shop.
Several members of the public organised a march to protest about a play being performed in their local theatre. They led a group of protestors down the local high street and into the theatre. The protestors were careful not to block the path of members of the public arriving to see the evening performance of the play. The police were called and immediately arrested those at the front of the procession. They were subsequently charged with a public order offence in relation to the procession.
Which of the following might provide the protestors with a defence?
1. A public procession is only ‘public’ if it takes place outside.
2. A public procession only breaches public order if it involves violence or threats of violence.
3. The arrest of the protestors was unlawful because they were no longer on the street when they were detained.
4. The theatre was a privately owned space and therefore not subject to public order provisions.
5. The arrest was unlawful as there had been no conditions imposed upon the protestors which they had then breached.
E is correct because an arrest can only be made if conditions have been imposed under s12 or s14 of the POA 1986 and those conditions have been breached. There is no mention of conditions having been imposed in this case.
A is wrong because a public order offence can be committed inside as well as outside provided that it takes place in a public place as defined by s16 POA 1986.
B is wrong because violence or threats of violence are not necessary for a public order offence to be committed.
C is wrong because a theatre falls within the definition of a public place as defined by s16 POA 1986.
D is wrong because s16 POA 1986 makes it clear that a public order offence can be committed in a privately owned space if it is a space to which the public has access on payment or otherwise.
A group of 15 anti-vaxxers are demonstrating outside a health clinic. Several people who are attending the clinic to receive vaccinations report feeling uncomfortable walking into the clinic past the protestors. A police constable attends the demonstration and tells the anti-vaxxers that they must move their protest to the next street 50m away. The anti-vaxxers refuse to comply with the police constable’s direction. The police constable calls for back up and the protestors are arrested.
Have the police acted lawfully in arresting the anti-vaxxers?
1. Yes because the anti-vaxxers were intimidating those attending the clinic.
2. Yes because the anti-vaxxers were committing a breach of the peace.
3. No because the demonstration by the anti-vaxxers did not constitute a public assembly.
4. No because the police constable is not a senior police officer and so did not have authority to impose directions.
5. No because the police constable had no grounds to justify imposing the condition.
the correct answer is option E as the police constable did not have grounds for imposing the condition. There is no evidence to give rise to a reasonable belief that the demonstration will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or that the purpose of the anti-vaxxers is to intimidate those attending the clinic.
Option A is wrong as causing discomfort is insufficient to amount to intimidation (Police v Reid).
Option B is wrong as the anti-vaxxers are not committing a breach of the peace which would require ‘harm to be done or likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property’ or for them to fear harm through an unlawful disturbance (R v Howell). There is no evidence of such harm on the facts.
Option C is wrong as the demonstration does constitute a public assembly – it consists of two or more people in a public place.
Option D is wrong as the police constable is the only, and therefore the most senior, police officer present at the scene.
The Anti-Fur Alliance (‘AFA’) are planning a protest demonstration on the pavement outside a store which sells fur products. The police have received intelligence that large numbers of members of the Freedom in Fashion Group are planning to attend the demonstration and serious violence is likely to break out as it has done at similar protests in the past. The chief constable believes that due to the number of protestors involved imposing conditions would be ineffective. Instead the Chief Constable would like to ban AFA’s demonstration to prevent any serious violence.
Does the Chief Constable have power to apply to the local authority to ban the AFA’s demonstration?
1. Yes, because the Chief Constable reasonably believes that imposing conditions will not prevent AFA’s demonstration from resulting in serious public disorder.
2. Yes, because the Chief Constable reasonably believes that AFA’s demonstration may result in serious public disorder.
3. Yes, because the Chief Constable reasonably believes that AFA’s demonstration will result in serious public disorder.
4. No, because the Chief Constable has no power to ban AFA’s demonstration in advance.
5. No, because a ban would be disproportionate. The Chief Constable could impose conditions as to the number who could attend the demonstration
the correct answer is Option D as the police have no power to ban a static demonstration in advance.
Option A is wrong as it correctly describes when the police can apply to ban public processions rather than static demonstrations.
Option B is wrong as it relates to the power to impose conditions, but it misstates this power which only applies if the senior police officer reasonably believes the demonstration will result in (amongst other things) serious public disorder.
Option C is wrong as it states the power to impose conditions, not to ban.
