header-logo header-logo

01 May 2008
Issue: 7319 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Protecting the right to protest

News

The erosion of the right to protest is to be investigated by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Announcing the inquiry last week, the committee said that its predecessor had raised concerns over the potential restrictions on protest around Parliament during the passage of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA).

It said that these concerns had been borne out in the prosecution of Maya Evans for reading out the names of the war dead at the Centotaph in 2005. Evans was prosecuted under s 135 of SOCPA, which bans unauthorised demonstrations.

Caoilfhionn Gallagher, a human rights and civil liberties specialist at Doughty Street Chambers, says an important issue for the committee will be how to police large-scale protests.

“In London, the Metropolitan Police now routinely photograph or film many such protests, despite the ‘chilling effect’ this has on protestors,” she says. ”Scenes of ‘panic policing’ were unanimously condemned by the House of Lords in Laporte, a test case against the Gloucestershire police brought after campaigners travelling to a demonstration were locked into their coaches by police and forcibly escorted away from the protest, without toilet stops, causing what Lord Bingham described as ‘acute physical discomfort and embarrassment.”

In Laporte, the House of Lords said rights to protest were protected by Arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and had long been enshrined in British legal tradition.

Lord Bingham emphasised that these rights were “fundamental rights, to be protected as such. Any prior restraint on their exercise must be scrutinised with particular care. The Convention test of necessity does not require that a restriction be indispensable, but nor is it enough that it be useful, reasonable or desirable”.

Gallagher says the committee will be examining whether recent high-profile events (such as the Laporte and Haw cases) are indicative of a trend towards eroding the right to protest, or an inevitable and necessary reaction to increased security concerns.

“Key issues for them will be the proportionality of legislative restrictions on protest, and existing police powers and their use in practice,” she adds.
 

Issue: 7319 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll