header-logo header-logo

Protecting the right to protest

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll