Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of the Greater London Authority)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Neuberger Mr,Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
Judgment Date16 July 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWCA Civ 817
Docket NumberCase No: A2/2010/1603, 1592,1598,1609,1602,1604,1605 & 1614
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date16 July 2010
Between:
(1) Rebecca Hall
(2) Brian Haw
(3) Barbara Tucker
(8) Chris Coverdale
(11) Friend (also know as Ian Robert Hobbs)
(12) Stuart Holmes
(15) Peace Little
(20) Persons Unknown
Appellants
and
The Mayor of London (On Behalf of the Greater London Authority)
Respondent

[2010] EWCA Civ 817

Before:

The Master of the Rolls Lady Justice Arden

and

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton

Case No: A2/2010/1603, 1592,1598,1609,1602,1604,1605 & 1614

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

2010 EWHC 1613

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Jan Luba QC, Mark Wonnacott, Stephanie Harrison and Jon Beckley (instructed by Bindmans) for the 1st Appellant

Martin Westgate QC and Paul Harris (instructed by Birnberg Pierce & Partners) for the 2 nd Appellant

Barbara Tucker, Chris Coverdale, Friend, Stuart Holmes, Peace Little and Persons Unknown all appeared In Person

Ashley Underwood QC and David Forsdick (instructed by Eversheds LLP) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 9 July 2010

Lord Neuberger Mr
1

There are before us applications for permission to appeal, which have been ordered to be heard on the basis that, if permission is given, the hearing of the appeal should follow immediately. We have heard the matter on a "rolled up" basis; in other words, the application and the projected appeal have been, in effect, argued together.

2

There are two orders which are sought to be appealed, and they were made by Griffith Williams J, following a hearing spread over eight days between 14 and 24 June 2010, with judgment given on 29 June— [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB). Both orders were made in favour of the claimant, the Mayor of London, suing "on behalf of the Greater London Authority". The first was an order for possession of Parliament Square Gardens London SW1 ("PSG"), against seventeen out of nineteen named defendants and "Persons Unknown". The second order was an injunction requiring fourteen out of the nineteen defendants and "Persons Unknown" (a) to dismantle any structures on, (b) (save in the case of three of the defendants, Mr Haw, Mrs Tucker and Ms Sweet) to cease to organise assemblies on, and (c) to leave, PSG.

The legislative background

3

The principal statutory provision governing the ownership and control of PSG is section 384 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 ("section 384"), which is in the following terms:

"(1) The land comprised in the site of the central garden of Parliament Square (which, at the passing of this Act, is vested in the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) is by this subsection transferred to and vested in Her Majesty as part of the hereditary possessions and revenues of Her Majesty.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects—

(a) any sewers, cables, mains, pipes or other apparatus under that site, or

(b) any interest which was, immediately before the passing of this Act, vested in London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries.

(3) The care, control, management and regulation of the central garden of Parliament Square shall be functions of the Authority.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Authority well and sufficiently to light, cleanse, water, pave, repair and keep in good order and condition the central garden of Parliament Square.

(5) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section are in addition to any other functions of the Authority.

(6) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, any functions of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 (duties and powers of management in relation to the royal parks, gardens and possessions there mentioned), so far as relating to the whole or any part of the central garden of Parliament Square, shall determine.

(7) Subsections (3) and (4) above shall have effect notwithstanding any law, statute, custom or usage to the contrary.

(8) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.

(9) In this section 'the central garden of Parliament Square' means the site in Parliament Square on which the Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square (Improvement) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Act as 'the new central garden'."

4

It is also relevant to refer to the next section of the same Act ("section 385") which provides as follows, so far as is relevant:

"(1) The Authority may make such byelaws to be observed by persons using Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square Garden as the Authority considers necessary for securing the proper management of those Squares and the preservation of order and the prevention of abuses there.

(2) Byelaws under this section may designate specified provisions of the byelaws as trading byelaws.

(3) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any byelaw under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—

(a) if the byelaw is a trading byelaw, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or

(b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

…"

5

It is also convenient to set out some of the Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Gardens Byelaws 2000 ("the Byelaws"), made pursuant to section 385(1):

"3. No person shall within the Squares …

(6) fail to comply with a reasonable direction given by an authorised person to leave the Squares; …

5. Unless acting in accordance with permission given in writing by …the Mayor …no person shall within the Squares

(1) attach any article to any tree, plinth, plant box, seat, railing fence or other structure;

(2) interfere with any notice or sign;

(3) exhibit any notice, advertisement or any other written or pictorial matter;.

(7) camp, or erect or cause to be erected any structure, tent or enclosure; …

(9) make or give a public speech or address; …

(10) organise or take part in any assembly, display, performance, representation, parade, procession, review or theatrical event; …

(13) go on any shrubbery or flower bed. …"

The factual background to the projected appeal

6

The basic facts giving rise to these proceedings are well summarised in the opening five paragraphs of the Judge's judgment:

"1.PSG … comprises the central area of Parliament Square around which runs the public highway, including in places pavement. To the east is the Palace of Westminster, to the south Westminster Abbey, to the west the Supreme Court and to the north, Whitehall and various government buildings. It is a highly important open space and garden at the heart of London and our Parliamentary democracy; it is an area of significant historic and symbolic value worldwide.

2. PSG is part of the Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square conservation area and a UNESCO Designated World Heritage Site.… It is classified as Grade II on English Heritages Register of parks and gardens with special historic interest. It provides world renowned views of both the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey.

3. On 1 May 2010, four separate groups said to represent the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and which had formed up at different locations across London arrived and set up a camp which they named their 'Democracy Village'. Their then stated intention was to remain until 6 May 2010, the date of the General Election but they have continued to occupy PSG and (on the evidence of a number of the defendants …) have every intention to do so for the foreseeable future.

4. Brian Haw (the second defendant) has been camping lawfully since 2001 on a pavement on the eastern side of PSG—a part of the highway controlled by Westminster City Council. He was joined some years later by Barbara Tucker (the third defendant). They have been conducting their own protest for Love, Peace, Justice for All. They and those associated with them are in no way a part of the Democracy Village.

5. The defendants who are a part of the Democracy Village are demonstrating variously in respect of a number of causes—these include the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, genocide, war crimes and world wide environmental issues."

7

As this attenuated summary suggests, the full factual background, particularly in the view of the defendants, is wide-ranging and involves very fundamental issues indeed. This was clear from the Judge's summary of the evidence he read and heard, and it was brought home to us by the eloquent oral submissions we received from some of the defendants, revealing their strong feelings of moral and ethical outrage at various issues of undoubted public importance, identified in paragraph 5 of the judgment below. Bearing in mind the fundamental nature of these issues, and the location where the defendants are gathered, the centrality of the two freedoms, which are undoubtedly engaged in these proceedings, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, could not be placed under a sharper focus.

8

Mr Haw, the second defendant, (represented at first instance by Mr Harris, who was led in this court by Mr Westgate QC) has been a virtually permanent fixture on the pavement area on the east of PSG, facing the Houses of Parliament, since 2001. While some might regard his presence with his placards as an eyesore in the face of Parliament, others see him as something of a national treasure, embodying the right of free speech in the very eye of the democratic storm. There have been various attempts to remove him from the pavement area, but none have so far succeeded, and the present proceedings do not seek to remove him from there, at least directly. At some point, he erected a tent on the grassed area of PSG ("the grassed area") immediately adjoining his pitch on the pavement; there is some dispute as to when that started, he says in 2001, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
10 books & journal articles
  • Royal Demesne
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill The Law of the Manor - 2nd Edition Part IV. Setting
    • 29 August 2012
    ...of the Queen and not part of the assets of the government. The Queen is free to dispose of the private estates by gift or will. 4 [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2011] 1 WLR 504. 5 Ibid at [25]. 394 The Law of the Manor 24.3 ALLODIAL LAND Most Crown properties are freehold, resulting from purchases o......
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill The Law of the Manor - 2nd Edition Preliminary Sections
    • 29 August 2012
    ...[1996] 1 EGLR 151, ChD 7.7 Hale v Norfolk County Council [2001] Ch 717, [2001] 2 WLR 1481, 82 P & CR 341 6.5 Hall v Mayor of London [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2011] 1 WLR 504, [2010] NPC 83, [2010] All ER (D) 171 (Jul) 24.2 Hall v Moore [2009] EWCA Civ 201, [2009] 24 EG 86, [2009] All ER (D) 235......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • 18 June 2013
    ...52 Mayo v. Hefferton (1972), 3 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 236 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.) ..................... 453 Mayor of London v. Hall, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 504 (C.A.) ........................................ 233 Maz Tudor Inns Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers (1985), 24 D.L.R. (4th) 3......
  • Injunctions to Enforce Public Rights
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • 18 June 2013
    ...relating to subdivision approval. 23 See Attorney General v. Chaudry , [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1614 (C.A.); Mayor of London v. Hall , [2011] 1 W.L.R. 504 (C.A.); and Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg v. Radio Oil Ltd. (1964), 48 D.L.R. (2d) 596 (Man. Q.B.). 24 See Saskatchewan (Minister ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT