Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and Proportionality of Preventive Action
| Date | 01 May 2007 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.3.211 |
| Published date | 01 May 2007 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and
Proportionality of Preventive Action
R (on the application of Laporte) vChief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006]
UKHL 55
Several demonstrations had taken place between December 2002 and
March 2003 at Fairford RAF base in Gloucestershire. The base had been
a focus for protest as it had been used by US Forces during the conflict
in Iraq.
A demonstration was scheduled to take place on 22 March 2003. The
demonstrators had given the police the required notice under s. 11 of
the Public Order Act 1986 and in turn the Chief Constable had used his
powers under ss 12 and 14 of that Act to impose conditions on both the
march and the assembly which were scheduled to take place. The police
had gone to great lengths to ensure that these conditions were commun-
icated to protestors.
In the period leading up to the demonstration, the police received
intelligence that members of a known anarchist group, the White Over-
alls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles (the WOMBLES)
were intending to attend. This group had previously been involved in
disorderly incidents at the base. The police had evidence that some
WOMBLES were intending to travel by coach to Fairford for the demon-
stration. Chief Superintendent Lambert had issued an instruction under
s. 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that allowed
police officers to stop and search people and vehicles to discover if
they were carrying ‘dangerous instruments or offensive weapons’
(s. 60(4)).
Three coaches, carrying some 120 people, some of whom the police
suspected to be WOMBLES members, were stopped and searched at
Lechdale, less than 5 km by road and 2 km on foot from the perimeter
fence of the base. The search uncovered some items which might be
used to disguise people’s identities and items such as spray paint and
scissors which might be used to cause criminal damage. The owners of
some, but not all, of the items were identified. Some people were
questioned as to their reasons for being on the coach but others
were not. One person was arrested in connection with an incident at
an earlier protest and three people who were identified as speakers
at the forthcoming demonstration were allowed to proceed. The rest of
the protestors, including the applicant, were instructed to re-board the
coaches which were then given a police escort back to London, a
journey of some two-and-a-half hours. This escort prevented the
coaches from stopping for any reason until London was reached.
The applicant sought judicial review of the police action both in
stopping the coach on its way to the demonstration and in requiring the
211
To continue reading
Request your trial