Source: https://www.theunitutor.com/right-to-protest-and-limitations/
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 16:14:38
Document Index: 138703705

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'art 11', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 11']

Sample Nature of Right to Protest Essay, No Plagiarism | The Uni Tutor
There has been great debate regarding the Right to Protest. The debate has largely centered around the character and scope of the human rights to the notions of assembly and freedom of speech: Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Interestingly, the right to protest has gained significant attention with the Occupy London, Occupy ‘the Banks’ protests across most Western nations: see: Hirst v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1986) 85 Cr App Rep 143; DPP v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240. The Occupy London protests have brought attention to the careful balance that must be in order to uphold the rights of individual protesters and that of the right of the public, or private entities, to not be the subject of undue interference.
The recent judgment of City of London v Samade & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 160, raised several important nuances regarding the Right to Protest and Assembly. By way of background, it is useful to note that the right to protest in a fundamental tradition in both the history of the common law and, more generally, politics in England and Wales: see, for example, Bill of Rights 1688 s 5 (repealed), Public Order Act 1986. The later act came about as a result of the Southall riots of 1979 and the Brixton riots of 1981. In a more holistic analysis, the right to protest in the UK was more of a negative right, as opposed to a positive one. To expand on this, it is useful to refer to Duncan V Jones [1936] 1 KB 218 where it was held by Lord Heward CJ at 222 ‘English law does not recognise any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes. The right of assembly . . . is nothing more than a view taken by the court, of the individual liberty of the subject’. This was again enunciated in R (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2006] UKHL 55 where it was stated by Lord Bingham that ‘‘the approach of the English common law to freedom of expression and assembly was hesitant and negative, permitting that which was not prohibited . . . “it can hardly be said that our constitution knows of such a thing as any specific right of public meeting’. Despite this, the right to assemble after passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 has lead to a positive right to assemble peacefull and has been argued to be a true change in the constitution of England and Wales: Redmond Bate v DPP (1999) 7 BHRC 375. However, this change has not come without resistance and there have been some laws passed to criminalise the right to protest: Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Pt 4.
Under the ECHR, everybody is entitled to the right to freedom of assembly: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950; TS 71 (1953); Cmd 8969) (the European Convention on Human Rights) art 11.1. The Convention is incorporated in the United Kingdom by the Human Rights Act 1998. There is no allowance for restrictions on the utilisation of this right. Thus, since freedom of assembly is a ‘convention right’ for the purposes Human Rights Act 1998 and it is thus in contravention for any public authority to against in contradiction to it: Human Rights Act 1998 ss 1(1)(a), (3), 2, 6, Sch 1.
Practically speaking, the Right to Protest and Assembly is extended to the way in which protestors aim to communicate their opinions and to the location where they wish to express their views: Mayor of London (on behalf of the Greater London Authority) v Hall [2010] EWCA Civ 817. It incorporates the participation in private and public meetings: Rassemblement Jurassien and Unité v Switzerland (1979) 17 DR 93.
Article 11 is a right which can only be restricted in the cases where interests of national security, public security, health are at risk: Mayor of London (on behalf of the Greater London Authority) v Hall [2010] EWCA Civ 817. Each interference with Article 11 needs to be proportionate: European Convention on Human Rights art 11.2; Baczkowski v Poland (2007) 48 EHRR 475, ECtHR.