European Court of Human Rights
| Published date | 01 June 1999 |
| Date | 01 June 1999 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300304 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European Court
of
Human Rights
COMMENT
Breach of the Peace
and
the European Convention
Steel
and
Others
v
United
Kingdom
(23
September
1998)
(67/l997/85l/1058)
The
Times
(I October 1998)
The five applicants
were
all protesters
who
were
seeking to challenge
their
detention
pursuant
to breach of
the
peace
and
binding
over
law.
Three of
the
applicants, Needham, Polden
and
Cole,
were
peace
demon-
strators
who
had
been
arrested for
breach
of
the
peace at a protest
against afighter helicopter convention following
their
holding of
ban-
ners
and
handing
out
of leaflets. They
were
released following
their
appearance at
court
eight
hours
later
and
the
prosecution was dis-
continued
at
the
resumed
hearing. The
other
two
applicants, Steel
and
Lush,
were
arrested
under
breach of
the
peace powers following
their
disruptive behaviour: Steel at a grouse
shoot
and
Lush
at
the
site of
the
MIl
motorway
extension in East London. They
were
detained for
much
longer periods (44
and
17 hours, respectively)
pending
the
next
avail-
able court sitting. They
were
proceeded against for breach of
the
peace at
magistrates' courts
and
were
imprisoned (for 28
and
7 days, respect-
ively)
when
they
refused to consent to bind-over orders to keep
the
peace
and
be of good behaviour.
The applicants all alleged
that
their
initial arrest
and
detention
by
the
police violated
their
right to liberty
and
security of
the
person
under
Article 5(1) of
the
European
Convention
on
Human
Rights
and
Funda-
mental
Freedoms
(the
Convention)
and
that
there
was no enforceable
right to compensation in breach of Article 5(5). They
further
alleged
violations of
their
right to freedom of expression
under
Article 10
and
freedom of peaceful assembly
under
Article
II
in respect of
their
detention.
Steel
and
Lush claimed, additionally,
that
they
had
been
given in-
sufficient details
about
the
nature
and
cause of
the
accusations against
them
prior to
their
court appearance, in violation of Article 6(3)(a).
They also argued
that
their
detention
by
the
magistrates' court
further
violated
their
rights
under
Article 5( I)
and
5(5) (due to
the
vagueness of
the
bind-over orders
and
the
judicial
immunity
of magistrates),
and
Articles 10
and
II
(due to
the
interference
with
their
peaceful protest
activity).
The
main
thrust
of
the
applicants'
argument
was
that
the
concepts of
breach of
the
peace
and
binding
over
to keep
the
peace or be of good
behaviour
were
far too uncertain. They submitted
that
the
domestic case
law insufficiently defined
the
type of conduct
that
might
lead to a breach
of
the
peace. They said
that
it was impossible to
judge
the
extent
to
which
one
could engage in protest activity in
the
presence of those
who
might be annoyed, given
that
breach of
the
peace encompasses peaceful
246
To continue reading
Request your trial