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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll