Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and Proportionality of Preventive Action
| Published date | 01 April 2005 |
| Date | 01 April 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.2.109.63516 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Assessing the Court of Appeal’s rationale in E, this pronouncement has
demonstrably not been met.
Surveillance and other covert policing methods are of unique value to
law enforcement agencies and the temptation must always be to admit
evidence generated from the deployment of such resources, having
regard to the value of that acquired, which is often highly incriminating.
However, as Lord Woolf CJ noted in Rv Togher, Doran and Parsons [2001]
3 All ER 463 at 467, (2002) 66 JCL 133:
now that the European Convention is part of our law domestic law it
would be most unfortunate if the approach identified by the European
Court of Human Rights and the approach of this court continued to
differ, unless it was inevitable because of provisions contained in this
country’s legislation . . .
It remains arguable that no such inevitability arises in respect of the
provisions of RIPA. Moreover, a challenge in Strasbourg has a certain
inevitability about it. RIPA is, on the issues raised in the present case,
perplexing; perhaps the time has come to accept that domestic square
pegs refuse to fit Convention round holes.
Simon McKay
Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and
Proportionality of Preventive Action
R (on the application of Laporte) vChief Constable of Gloucestershire
Constabulary and Others [2004] EWCA Civ 1639
Between December 2002 and March 2003, a number of demonstrations
against the hostilities in Iraq were held at Fairford, an air base in
Gloucestershire which the US Air Force had used during the conflict.
Some of these demonstrations had resulted in criminal damage,
breaches of the base perimeter and arrests. The events that formed the
basis of this case centred on a demonstration planned for 22 March
2003.
The demonstration on 22 March had been notified to the police who
had authorised it under ss 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
During the period between the authorisation being granted and the
demonstration taking place, the police received intelligence which led
them to believe that some ‘hard-line’ protestors wished to attend. The
police had particular concern about the activities of a group known as
the White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles
(WOMBLES). This is an activist group whose website indicates that they
have anarchist ideals. The group’s website indicated that they would
have a presence at the demonstration on 22 March.
The police were concerned that the presence of these ‘hard-liners’
would cause public order problems and thus devised a number of
strategies to ensure that the demonstration could take place peacefully.
Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and Proportionality of Preventive Action
109
To continue reading
Request your trial