Apprentice Boys Of Derry, Bridgeton Against Glasgow City Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff S Reid |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] SC GLA 80 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 01 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | B1175/19 |
| Published date | 11 October 2019 |
SHERIFFDOM OF GLASGOW AND STRATHKELVIN AT GLASGOW
[2019] SC GLA 80
B1175/19
NOTE BY SHERIFF S REID ESQ
in the Summary Application
Under section 64 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
at the instance of
APPRENTICE BOYS OF DERRY, BRIDGETON
Pursuer
against
GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL
Defender
Act: McDougall, Advocate; Miller Becket & Jackson, Glasgow
Alt: Armstrong Q.C; Glasgow City Council Legal Department
1 October 2019
Summary
[1] A person proposing to hold a public procession must give no less than 28 days’
notice of that proposal to the relevant local authority and to the Chief Constable of the Police
Service of Scotland. After consulting with the Chief Constable, the local authority may
prohibit the procession or impose conditions upon it. In exercising its discretionary powers,
the local authority must have regard inter alia to the likely effect of the procession upon
public safety, public order, damage to property, and disruption of the life of the community,
as well as the extent to which containment of risks arising from the procession place an
2
excessive burden on the police. A right of appeal, on specified grounds, lies to the sheriff
against a local authority’s order (Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, sections 62 to 64).
[2] The pursuer is an unincorporated association called Apprentice Boys of Derry,
Bridgeton. It duly notified the defender, as the relevant local authority, of its intention to
hold a procession along certain streets in Glasgow’s east end on Saturday 1 June 2019. The
proposed route would have taken the procession along Abercromby Street and past the
front of St Mary’s Roman Catholic Church there.
[3] Three other unincorporated associations (Apprentice Boys of Derry Dalmarnock No
Surrender Branch Club; Dalmarnock Orange and Purple District 50; and Orange and Purple
District 37) notified the defender of their intention to hold separate processions along
broadly similar routes, each passing by St Mary’s Church, all on the same weekend (one on
Saturday, two on Sunday), at certain times of the day.
[4] The police were concerned. They recommended that part of the pursuer’s procession
be re-routed to avoid the Catholic Church. The defender issued an Order under section
63(1)(ii) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (“the 1982 Act”) altering part of the
proposed route, by diverting the pursuer’s procession around and away from St Mary’s
Church on Abercromby Street. (Similar Orders were issued for the same reasons in relation
to the processions of the three other associations.)
[5] All four associations lodged separate appeals to the sheriff against that decision.
They complained that the re-routing of their processions breached their right of peaceful
assembly under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and
that the defender had erred in the exercise its power under the 1982 Act. Of consent, the
four appeals were conjoined. No distinction was sought to be drawn between any of the
associations, processions or appeals.
3
[6] Having heard parties’ submissions, I dismissed all four appeals. I gave an extempore
judgment and undertook to issue this note explaining my reasoning more fully.
[7] In summary, I dismissed the appeals for the following reasons: (i) the pursuers failed
to establish that Article 11(1), ECHR was applicable because the purpose of their processions
was not disclosed in averment or submission; (ii) separately, esto article 11, ECHR was
applicable, the pursuers failed to establish that the Convention Right was engaged because
the defender’s alleged interference therewith was de minimis; (iii) esto the Convention Right
was applicable and engaged, the interference therewith was nevertheless plainly justified in
terms of Article 11(2), ECHR, because it was prescribed by law, it sought to achieve
permitted legitimate aims, and it was necessary in a democratic society (a fortiori having
regard to section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998); and, further, (iv) the defender, in
arriving at its decision, did not err in law, did not exercise its discretion in an unreasonable
manner, and did not otherwise act beyond its powers in terms of the 1982 Act. Separately, I
have offered an alternative analysis of the merits of the pursuers’ appeals predicated upon
the hypothesis that certain matters fall within judicial knowledge. I explain my reasoning
more fully below.
Factual summary
[8] The following factual background was admitted in averment or otherwise conceded
in submission.
[9] On 22 January 2019, in terms of section 62(1) of the 1982 Act, the pursuer notified the
defender of its intention to hold a public procession through specific streets in the east end
of Glasgow on Saturday 1 June 2019. A copy of the pursuer’s notification is lodged as item
5/1 of process (“the notice”). The notice provides basic details of the proposed procession:
To continue reading
Request your trial