Tom Hennessey looks at the curious case of the protesters who won’t leave...
"A four-day hearing at the High Court has been listed for 19 December to consider the curious case of the protesters who won’t leave. The City of London Corporation is trying to evict Occupy London Stock Exchange activists, who have been occupying the area outside St Paul’s since October in a campaign against corporate greed and wealth inequality.
The City of London has argued in its proceedings bundle that any significant physical obstruction of the public highway which unlawfully restricts users from the full exercise of their highway rights across its full extent is an offence under s 137 of the Highways Act 1980. According to David Forsdick, counsel for the corporation: “The City’s position is: Peaceful protest? Yes. Permanent encampment? No.”
The protesters were given until 6pm on 17 November to clear their tents from areas on the highway, but eviction notices were removed and they vowed they would stay and fight a legal battle.
The right to protest is protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the City of London points to Mayor of London v Hall [2010] All ER (D) 171 (Jul) in which it was held that interference with protester’s rights under Arts 10 and 11 of the Convention was proportionate in relation to a semi-permanent, large camped protest on public open space.
It is vital that such public protests are held periodically, if only to remind the public and authorities that they are a normal part of a democratic system.
If a government were to form in Utopian unity with the voters, we’d need to make up a gripe just to keep the whole process ticking along...”
To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
