Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Public order - Coggle Diagram

- - - - relating to those who organise and take part in such trespassory assemblies, as well as those who incite another person to take part
- - - - S11(1) requires written notice given of any proposal to hold a public procession for any three following purposes: (Unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession)
      - a) To demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons
      - b) To publicise a cause or campaign
      - c) To mark or commemorate an event
      - To be ‘public’ procession must take place in a ‘public place’ (S16 POA for definition)
        
        Flockhart v Robinson- a ‘procession’ was characterised not as a mere body of persons but a body of persons moving along a route and the ‘organiser’ seen as the person directing the route
    - - Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis- monthly mass of cycle rides known as ‘critical mass’ had occurred since 1994 and amounted to a ‘commonly or customarily held’ procession and were exempt from notice requirement
  - - - a) It may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community
    - - i) The noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession and ii) that impact may be significant, or
      - b) The purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or do an act they have a right not to do (that intimidatory behaviour must be of a degree intended by the organisers of the procession to compel another person to act against their will- Police v Reid- assemblies case but shows principle)
    - - S12(4)- a person who organises a public procession and fails to comply with a condition imposed under the section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove the failure arose from circumstances beyond his control
      - S12(5)- a person who takes part in a public procession and fails to comply with a condition imposed under this section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to provide that failure arose from circumstances beyond his control
      - S12(5A) a person is guilty of an offence under subsection 4 or 5 only if (a) the person knows or ought to have known the condition has been imposed
      - S12(6) a person who incites another to commit an offence under subsection 5 is guilty of an offence
    - - S12(8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both
      - S12(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale
      - S12(10) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both
  - - - Kent v Metropolitan Police Commissioner- concerned challenging an order banning all processions (other than religious ones) for 28 days over the entirety (786 square miles) of the metropolitan police district. He was effectively challenging the breadth of the ban, given that many of these processions were entirely peaceful. The police's case was that there was a risk of serious disorder arising from National Front marches and Anti-Nazi League counter demonstrations. Although there was some concern over the police evidence relating to the extent of the risk, the Court of Appeal did not accept that there were no reasonable grounds for making the order; the challenge to the lawfulness of the general ban therefore failed. This reflects the unwillingness of the court to disturb operational decisions, seen to be within the core competence of the police, in relation to matters of public safety and security.
      - During 2011 riots in London- Home Secretary approved prohibition order banning public processions in five boroughs for 30 days, to prevent EDL march, the breadth of the order got some criticism
  - - - a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community
      - aa) in the case of an assembly, the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the assembly,
      - ab) in the case of an assembly
      - i) the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the assembly, and (ii) that impact may be significant, or
      - b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.
      - the person empowered to impose conditions under this section, if an assembly is taking place, is the most senior in rank of the police officers at the scene of the assembly.
    - - the senior police officer may, under s 14(1A), impose conditions on those organising and attending assemblies if they appear to him necessary to prevent the risks of disorder, damage, impact or intimidation
      - The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has also introduced into the POA a number of specific instances in which s 14(1) is seen to be engaged – see ss 14(2A) to (2E) inclusive
      - Section 14(3) stipulates that, where a condition is imposed in advance of the assembly, it must be in writing
      - The police do not have powers to instigate or make a prohibition order, banning assemblies in the same way they do (under s 13) with regard to processions. However, the powers under s 14 can still be effective. For example, the police are able to impose short time limitations on a meeting or maximum attendance limits
      - These powers must be used in a proportionate manner, however, as indicated by the inclusion of the necessity requirement in s 14 POA (and s 12) and comply with S6 HRA duty
    - - Police v Reid, protesters, taking part in an anti-apartheid demonstration outside the South African High Commission in London, shouted at guests as they arrived and chanted: 'apartheid murderers, get out of Britain.' The court held that the police inspector had applied the wrong test by defining intimidation as 'putting people in fear or discomfort' whereas, under the correct test, the protestors would have needed to intend to compel the guests not to go into South Africa House
      - R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police- The claimant and others had held regular demonstrations for four years outside Marks & Spencer's in Manchester city centre as part of a group which encouraged shoppers to boycott the store because of its alleged support for the Israeli Government. Counter demonstrations had also appeared. The Chief Constable imposed temporary conditions on the group over the Christmas period, including requiring it to move its demonstration away from the busy city centre shopping area to the local 'Peace Gardens.' Challenged the reasonable belief under S14(1) and whether proportionate measures were taken under article 10 and 11. The chief constables decision was proportionate as they were only temporary restrictions and had a legitimate aim
      - DPP v James: part of a group protesting outside a court, a senior police officer took the view it was causing serious disruption to the community and imposed a condition to move the protest away. James was convicted of knowingly failing to comply with the condition (S14(5)). As he had reasonable grounds for belief in serious public disruption and the actions needed were necessary, proportionality approach was already satisfied for the articles 10 and 11. Requires both an honest subjective belief and objective grounds
      - reasons for conditions
        
        On the procedural issue in Brehony, the question was whether the Chief Constable had to give reasons for imposing conditions under s 14(1). As they had been imposed in advance rather than at the scene, the Chief Constable was obliged to identify which of the three possible consequences of the demonstration (outlined in s 14(1)(a)) he reasonably believed may result. The court indicated that extensive detail was not required. However, the Chief Constable did have to provide sufficient information on the reasons in order for a demonstrator to understand why directions were being given
        
        Although the POA does not provide powers to prohibit assemblies, the police can in some situations use powers from other legal sources to prevent people assembling
        
        in March 2021 the police prohibited a vigil in memory of Sarah Everard. The meeting had initially been organised by the group Reclaim These Streets to remember Sarah and to highlight violence against women on the UK's streets. The police relied on regulations restricting people's movement which had been brought in to protect public health in response to the Covid 19 pandemic. The imposition of these controls led to a public order situation after several attendees were arrested by the police when they refused to disperse.
- - - - R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire- The coaches of demonstrators on their way to a protest, they were intercepted and escorted back due to fear of breach of the peace. HoL said to use any powers for breach of the peace, they must have feared the breach would be imminent. Preventative action taken must also be proportionate. The anticipated breach was not imminent nor was the action entirely proportionate as precautions had already been put in place at the place of protest. It was disproportionately affecting article 10 and 11.
      - R (McClure & Moos) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis- McClure involved two demonstrations a quarter of a mile apart. One of these was affected by violence and had been 'contained' and dispersed, and the other was relatively peaceful. The police nevertheless decided to contain the second demonstration to prevent violent demonstrators from the first demonstration from hijacking it. The police's appeal was successful, with an acknowledgment by the court that, depending on the circumstances, steps which include keeping two or more different groups apart may be necessary, reasonable and proportionate, if a combination of groups is reasonably apprehended to be likely to lead to an imminent breach of the peace. Additionally, it may be necessary in order to prevent such an imminent breach of the peace for action to be taken which affects people who are not themselves going to be actively involved in it