header-logo header-logo

11 May 2012
Issue: 7513 / Categories: Case law , Civil way , In Court
printer mail-detail

Public order

R (on the application of Gallastegui) v Westminster City Council [2012] EWHC 1123 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 144 (Apr)

Although ss 143 and 145 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PRSRA 2011) referred respectively to “a prohibited activity” and “a prohibited item”, it was very clear from the wording of those sections that those activities and items only became prohibited if and when the constable or authorised officer decided to exercise the power to make a direction in the case of s 143 or a seizure in the case of s 145. If a person empowered to act under s 143 or 145 acted in breach of the rights of a particular person under Arts 10 or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), then that person would be entitled to various remedies. Further, balancing the respective interests, no additional positive obligation was required of the state because of the limited effects of ss 143 and 145. The PRSRA 2011 conferred powers which, if exercised, constituted a restriction which only related to sleeping items.

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll