header-logo header-logo

07 June 2024
Issue: 8074 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 7 June 2024

Police powers

R (on the application of ­National Council for Civil Liberties) v ­Secretary of State for the Home Department (Public Law Project ­intervening) [2024] EWHC 1181 (­Admin), [2024] All ER (D) 89 (May)

The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant’s judicial review claim in part, held that the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/655), which strengthened police powers concerning protests, were unlawful. Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986) empowered the police to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies if an officer reasonably believed that there would be ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’. The government laid two amendments to the Public Order Bill, which sought to expand the definition of ‘serious disruption’ in POA 1986 to include anything which was ‘more than minor’. However, the House of Lords had rejected one of the amendments. Before the Public Order Act 2023 (POA 2023) had received Royal Assent, the government had then exercised the ‘Henry VIII power’ to amend legislation by secondary

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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