header-logo header-logo

15 September 2011
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights—Right to liberty and security—Lawfulness of detention

R (on the application of Castle and others) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 2317 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 34 (Sep)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (London), Pitchford LJ and Supperstone J, 8 Sept 2011

The Divisional Court has ruled that the Metropolitan Police’s containment of children during a public demonstration was not been in breach of the force’s duty under s 11 of the Children Act 2004 or any public law duties.

Martin Westgate QC and Ruth Brander (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the claimants.
Ivan Hare (instructed by the Metropolitan Police Service) for the defendant.

In November 2010, the defendant police commissioner received notification of a public procession and applications in respect of demonstrations contributing towards a “national student walk out” on 24 November (the event). The defendant’s senior police officers who were responsible for policing major events, were designated as gold, silver or bronze commander depending on their role. On 23 November, the silver commander who was to be in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll