Public Order

Question 1

Can police ban a public assembly in advance?

Answer 1

The chief officer of police cannot ban the meeting as they have no power to ban such a meeting in advance.

The police have no power to ban a public assembly in advance (unless it is a trespassory assembly, which this is not. Even if it were, fear of violence is not a ground for banning a trespassory assembly).

Question 2

Quick Q:

A group of about 100 demonstrators have gathered in a square outside a town hall protesting against a local authority’s cuts to library services. The time is nearly 17.00 when many of the local authority’s workers will be leaving the town hall and some of them normally walk through the square on their way home. Most of the demonstrators are chanting slogans such as ‘Save our libraries’ and ‘Down with the council’, but there has been no violence. A police sergeant, supervised by her inspector, are the only police at the scene. The inspector orders the demonstrators to disperse in the next 15 minutes to ensure that the workers can go home without any trouble.

Which of the following best describes whether the inspector’s order is lawful?

Although the inspector is the senior police officer present, she cannot impose conditions on the protest as she does not have reasonable grounds for believing that the demonstrators’ behaviour will intimidate the local authority’s workers.

Answer 2

Option C is correct. As the senior police officer present at the scene, the inspector does have the power under s 14(1) POA 1986 if she reasonably believes that the assembly will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community; the noise generated may seriously disrupt the activities of an organisation in the vicinity or cause significant impact on people nearby either intimidating or harassing them or causing them alarm or distress; or the purpose of the organisers is to intimidate others with a view to compelling them not to do something which they have a right to do, or to do something which they have a right not to. However, based on Police v Reid, it seems unlikely that the organisers have intimidatory purpose, and the protest seems unlikely to lead to serious disruption. For that reason option A is wrong.

The police do have common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace that can be used to disperse meetings, so option D is wrong. However, option B is wrong because on the facts there are no grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace as defined in R v Howell, as the conduct of protestors seems unlikely to result in violence. Option E is wrong because the common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace are not limited to arrest, but can include a direction to disperse.

Question 3

Trespassory assembly

Answer 3

An assembly of 20 or more persons to be held at a place or on land in the open air to which the public has no right of access or only a limited right of access.

Question 4

Public assembly

Answer 4

Two or more people in a public place.

Question 5

Which of the following best describes the conditions under which the Chief Constable could apply to the local authority to BAN marches in the area?

Answer 5

The Chief Constable reasonably believes that their powers to impose conditions are insufficient to prevent a risk of serious public disorder.

Option A correctly describes the conditions under which the Chief Constable can apply to ban all marches, or a class of marches, under s12 POA 1986. Option E is therefore wrong as the Chief Constable does have power to apply to the local authority to ban political marches in certain circumstances.

Question 6

Do you always have to give 6 clear days notice to the police about a protest?

Answer 6

No

You don’t have to do so if it was not reasonably practicable to give advance notice of the march, the organisers have not committed an offence and in any event the march itself is not illegal.

Option C is correct. Under s 11(1) POA 1986 organisers of a public procession (march) must give the police six clear days’ notice if it is for any of the purposes specified in the section. Protesting against a new motorway comes within these purposes. However, if it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession, there is no duty to give the notice. Here, the march seems to be an immediate response to the andnouncement of the new motorway and coincides with the visit of the responsible government minister. If the organisers had given six clear days’ notice, they would have missed the minister’s visit. Option C is thus a better answer than option D, as option D sets out what the position would have been had the duty to give notice applied. Option E is wrong as the marches remain legal even when the organisers should have given notice; the knowledge of the marchers whether notice has been given is irrelevant.

Option A is wrong because, while the prospect of serious disruption to the life of the community may give the police grounds for imposing conditions on the march, it does not render the march itself illegal.

Option B is wrong because, as stated above, the march remains legal even if a notice should have been given.

Question 7

Customary or commonly held procession defence

Answer 7

The barrister should argue that this was a customary or commonly held procession and so exempt from prosecution.

B is correct, this is a similar scenario to the Critical Mass case where the exemption was allowed for an event which was regularly held, although not run in exactly the same way each time.

Additional note:Option B is the correct answer as under s11 Public Order Act 1986 organisers of marches must generally give at least 6 clear days’ notice in writing to the police specifying the date, time and route of the march and the name and address of the organiser. This march will not come within any exceptions within s11 as it is not one commonly or customarily held, and it is practicable to give notice. SO DON’T HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE IF CUSTOMARILY OR COMMONLY HEALD

Question 8

Quick Q:

A local council have just given planning permission for a company to build a tower block in the town. Approximately 100 protestors have gathered outside the council offices and are blocking the High Street, causing a long queue of traffic through the town. The police are called. A police constable attends and tells the protestors that they must move to the town square (which is pedestrianised) if they wish to continue their protest, as the traffic congestion is causing serious disruption to the local community.

Has the police officer acted lawfully in directing the protestors to move to the town square?

Yes, because the police officer can give directions relating to the place of the meeting.

Answer 8

Option D is the correct option because under s.14 Public Order Act 1986 where the senior police officer reasonably believes that an assembly may result in (amongst other things) serious disruption to the life of the community s/he may give directions. Directions can include directions as to the place the assembly is held.

NOT: Yes, because the police officer can give directions relating to the place of the meeting.

Option A is wrong because there is no evidence on the facts that a breach of the peace is imminent or has occurred.

Question 9

Do you have to ask permission for a protest to take place?

Answer 9

There is no requirement to ask permission from the police to lead a public procession. The requirement is to give advance notice.

Question 10

Quick Q:

A farmer is participating in a trial of genetically modified wheat on his farm. A group of 25 anti-GM protestors have gathered on the farm in an empty field next to the farm shop. The farmer has called the police saying he fears visitors to the farm shop will be discouraged from buying his produce by the protestors. The police attend and tell the protestors that they must disperse within the next 15 minutes or they will be arrested.

Are the actions of the police lawful?

No, because the police do not reasonably fear that a breach of the peace will occur.

Answer 10

Option D is the correct answer as in these circumstances the police will only be able to disperse the demonstrators if they reasonably fear a breach of the peace. The farmer says he fears that visitors to the shop will be discouraged from buying his produce, but this does not amount to fear of harm sufficient for a breach of the peace.

Incorrect answer: Yes, because the demonstration amounts to a trespassory assembly since it consists of more than 20 people.

BECAUSE: Option C is wrong since to be a trespassory assembly the demonstration would need to result in serious disruption to the life of the community or significant damage to the land, building or monument which is of historical, archaeological or scientific importance. In addition, the local authority would need to make a banning order.

Question 11

Breach of peace

Answer 11

The definition of a breach of the peace is contained in the case of R v Howell [1982] QB 416 where the court stated that there was a breach of the peace:

“whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance”.

The Howell case emphasises that there is a need for harm or the threat of harm before there will be a breach of the peace. It also confirms that the police can arrest when a breach of the peace is reasonably feared; it does not have to have occurred.

So breach of the peace requires that an act is done which:

• Harms a person or (in their presence) their property
• Likely to cause such harm
• Puts someone in fear of such harm

In the more recent case of R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucester [2006] UKHL 55, the House of Lords confirmed that **in all cases the breach of the peace must be ‘imminent’.*

Question 12

Does the chief Officer have power to ban the meetings?

Answer 12

The Chief Officer has no power to ban the meeting. Only the local authority can do so if supported by the Secretary of State.

Question 13

Static demonstrations

Answer 13

Police have no power to ban a static demonstration in advance.

This is in contrast to:

Police can apply to ban public processions, this is not relevant to static demonstrations. (the answer would be Yes, because the Chief Constable reasonably believes that imposing conditions will not prevent AFA’s demonstration from resulting in serious public disorder.)

Question 14

When a march is in progress the police still have power to give directions under the Public Order Act.

Answer 14

Serious disruption to the life of the community= The inspector, as the senior police officer present on the scene, may give such directions as appear to him necessary to prevent serious disruption to the life of the community. The fact that traffic has come to a standstill and will take a considerable time to clear meaning that people may miss their flights is likely to amount to serious disruption to the life of the community.

Question 15

Imposing conditions on public assemblies

Answer 15

Option A is correct. The Chief of Police is the most senior officer and can impose conditions on public assembly as he reasonably believes that the meeting where religious texts will be burned may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, (or because the purpose of the organiser is intimidation) (s.14(1) POA), as this happened previously.

Placing restrictions and conditions on the group is the most proportionate responses, as the police have no power to impose a ban. The right to hold non-religious beliefs is protected by Art 9, however the right to manifest your beliefs is qualified. This means it can be interfered with in certain situations - for example, to protect the rights of others as is the case here.

Question 16

Quick Q:

A group of environmental protestors earlier proceeded with a protest which caused serious public disorder, disruption and intimidation. The protestors have planned a further protest, stating anyone opposing their protest will ‘face their full wrath’. Fearful of the consequences for public order the Chief of Police applies to the local council for a banning order under s13 Public Order Act 1986. After obtaining the consent of the Home Secretary, the council makes an order which prohibits all public processions in the local area for a period of two months.

The protestors wrote to the council to ask whether an exception can be made for their protest as it had previously complied with all restrictions and conditions imposed and did not pose any risk to public order. The council responded that its policy was to ban all marches and no exceptions could be made. 2 months have passed since the decision was made by the council.

Can the protestors apply for judicial review to challenge the local council’s decision of a banning order?

Yes, because this is public law issue, involving a public authority, the group has standing, they are being prevented from marching and therefore are directly affected by the ban and are victims under s7 HRA.

Answer 16

Option B is the correct option, as control of public demonstrations is clearly a public law issue. The local council are exercising powers under the Public Order Act and are clearly a public body (Datafin. The group is being prevented from marching and therefore are directly affected by the ban. They are also ‘victims’ for the purposes of s7 HRA. Time limit and ouster clause is not applicable see below.

Option A is wrong. This is not relevant consideration for bringing a Judicial Review claim at this stage.

Option C is not the SBA as it is not clear on the facts whether the group have acted promptly or not. The time limits is 3 months from the date of the banning decision (s31 SCA and r54 CPR and therefore they still have time to bring a claim for judicial review).

Option D is wrong because there are no ouster clauses in the Public Order Act and no right of appeal against a banning order. Any banning order can only be challenged by way of Judicial Review.

Option E is wrong as the group meets the definition of victims for the purposes of s7 HRA.

Question 17

Quick Q:

A protest group is holding a protest in the town square. The protest consists of about 100 people who are standing in the middle of the square. A local shopkeeper approaches the speaker and asks if they can end the meeting as customers are being put off by the protest from visiting his shop. On hearing this one protestor shouts ‘Go away old man, leave us to exercise our freedom of speech or you might find your shop window gets accidentally broken’. The shopkeeper is scared by this and calls the police. A police constable attends and tells the protestors that their protest must end in the next ten minutes or they will be arrested.

Has the police officer acted lawfully?

Yes, because the police officer reasonably fears a breach of the peace.

Answer 17

The correct option is C as the police officer reasonably fears a breach of the peace which is defined as ‘whenever harm is done or likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance’. The protestor has threatened to damage the shopkeeper’s shop windows and so the definition is satisfied as damage is likely to be done to his property. The police can disperse a protest where they reasonably fear a breach of the peace.

Option A is wrong because any police officer, of whatever rank, can exercise powers to prevent a breach of the peace.

Option B is wrong because, although there is a risk of damage to property, that risk would not appear to be of ‘serious’ damage. There appears to be no risk of serious violence or serious disruption to the life of the community.

Option D is wrong because the protestor is not threatening serious violence, only that the shop window may be damaged.

Option E is wrong because, although the police have no power to ban a meeting in advance under the POA 1986, they can disperse a meeting using their common law powers [and could give directions as to duration under the POA if the relevant criteria were fulfilled – they are not on the facts].