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

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Griffith Williams
Judgment Date29 June 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWHC 1613 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: HQ10X01980/HQ19X01981
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date29 June 2010

[2010] EWHC 1613 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before: Mr Justice Griffith Williams

Case No: HQ10X01980/HQ19X01981

Between
The Mayor of London (on Behalf of the Greater London Authority)
Claimant
and
(1) Rebecca Hall
(2) Brian Haw
(3) Barbara Tucker
(4) Charity Sweet
(5) Lew Almond
(6) Chan Aniker
(7) Anna Chithrakla
(8) Chris Coverdale
(9) Joshua Dunn
(10) Dirk Duputall
(11) Friend (Also Known as Robert Hobbs)
(12) Stuart Holmes
(13) Rodge Kinney
(14) Professor Chris Knight
(15) Peace Little
(16) Simon Moore
(17) Anita Olivacce
(18) Peter Phoenix
(19) Raga Woods
(20) Persons Unknown Being Persons Entering or Remaining Without the Consent of the Greater London Authority or The Mayor Of London at Land Known as Parliament Square Gardens in Connection with Democracy Village Protest
Defendant

Ashley Underwood QC and David Forsdick (instructed by Eversheds) for the Claimant.

Jan Luba QC (instructed by Bindmans LLP and (Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the First, Second and Third Defendants on the first issue only.

Stephanie Harrison and John Beckley (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the First Defendant

Paul Harris (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the Second Defendant and for the Third Defendant (until 23 June 2010)

The Third Defendant (after 23 June 2010) and the Fourth to Twentieth Defendants in person.

Hearing dates: 14 th, 15 th, 16 th, 17 th, 21 st, 22 nd, 23 rd, 24 th and 29 th June 2010.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

[All references in square brackets are to the page numbers in the Trial bundle. The legislation and other relevant provisions are in the Appendix to this judgment]

Introduction:

1

Parliament Square Gardens [“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 (“WHS”). 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’, They 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 –post) have every intention to do so for the foreseeable future.

4

Brian Haw (the 2 nd 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 3 rd 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.

6

The care, control, management and regulations of PSG is the function of the Greater London Authority [“GLA”] which has a duty to keep PSG in good order and condition: section 384(3) of Greater London Authority Act 1999 [“GLAA”]. The functions and duties are exercised by the Mayor on behalf of the GLA which has powers to make such byelaws to be observed by persons using PSG as the GLA considers necessary for securing the proper management of PSG, the preservation of order and the prevention abuses there: section 385(1) of GLAA. The byelaws (see Appendix) prohibit any person within PSG, unless acting in accordance with permission given by the Mayor from camping, taking part in any assembly, attaching any article to any tree or fence or other structure and going onto shrubbery or flower beds. Notwithstanding repeated requests to leave, those who are part of the Democracy Village have remained on PSG.

7

By claims issued and served on 26 May 2010, the Mayor of London on behalf of the GLA claimed an order for possession of PSG forthwith, as against the 1 st and 20 th (then the 4 th) defendants in respect of the land shown edged with a blue line on the plan attached to the claim and as against the 2 nd and 3 rd defendants in respect of the land edged green on the attached plan, and for an injunction as against the 1 st and 20 th defendants requiring them (i) forthwith to dismantle and remove from the grassed area all tents and other similar structures on PSG and thereafter not to bring onto or erect on PSG any tent or any other similar structure except in accordance with any permission granted by the Mayor or on his behalf under Byelaw 5(9); (ii) forthwith to cease to organise or take part in the assembly known as Democracy Village and thereafter not to take part in any assembly which does not have permission under Byelaw 5 and Section 133 of the Serious Organised Crime Police Act 2005 [“SOPCA”] and (iii) forthwith to leave PSG in accordance with the lawful directions issued on behalf of the Mayor and as against the 2 nd and 3 rd defendants, an injunction requiring them to (i) forthwith dismantle and remove from the grassed area all tents and other structures and thereafter not to bring onto or erect on that grass area any tent or similar structure except in accordance with any permission granted by the Mayor or on his behalf under Byelaw 5 (9); (ii) forthwith the cease to organise or take part in any assembly on the grassed area which does not have permission under Byelaw 5 and/or Section 133 of the SOCPA and (iii) forthwith to leave the grassed area in accordance with the lawful directions issued on behalf of the Mayor.

8

The hearing date for the Part 55 claim and the first hearing for the Part 7 claim were set for 3 June 2010. At the hearing, Charity Sweet asked to be added as a defendant to that part of each of the two concurrent actions which relates to the claims against the 2 nd and 3 rd defendants and a number of persons asked to be joined as defendants on the basis that they are participating in and/or in occupation of Democracy Village; the claimant made it clear that he had no specific allegations against any of these persons other than their own admissions in seeking to be joined. Maddison J gave leave for Charity Sweet to be joined as the 4 th defendant and for the others to be joined as defendants 5–19; the consequence was that the original 4 th defendant became the 20 th defendant. Maddison J ordered that the need for service in relation to all documents in the concurrent actions to 3 June on the additional defendants be dispensed with.

9

At an adjourned hearing on 7 June, Maddison J gave the claimant permission to amend the claim in both Claims to (i) add the defendants who had been joined at their requests and to make consequential amendments to the pleadings; (ii) to particularise as far as necessary the allegations made and (iii) to refine the terms of the injunction sought – the terms of the injunction sought particularised above are those in the amended particular of claim. Amongst various case management directions, Maddison J ordered that any party intending to rely on any evidence or expression of view should submit such evidence to the claimant's solicitor by 4pm on Wednesday 9 June.

10

The pleaded cases of the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd defendants (and the defences of the unrepresented defendants amount to a denial of any breach of the byelaws and an assertion of their Article 10 & 11 ECHR rights; no further summary is necessary because counsel, at the outset of the hearing, helpfully agreed a List of Issues (see below). Other defences raised by some of the unrepresented defendants will be considered later in the judgment. A counterclaim on behalf of the 2 nd and 3 rd defendants for a declaration that their demonstration “within the area marked green on the plan and on the adjacent pavement” is a lawful exercise of their rights to free speech and assembly is a restatement of their defence and will be considered as such. A further claim, in a proposed re-amended Counterclaim for a declaration that byelaws 5(9) and (10) are unlawful was abandoned.

Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights

11

During the course of the hearing a number of Article 6 European Convention of Human Rights issues were raised by various defendants Article 6 provides:

“1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of … public order”.

At the start of the hearing, Brian Haw, (the 2 nd defendant) submitted he had had insufficient time to prepare for trial and was disadvantaged in particular because he had insufficient time to investigate and to approach witnesses to events, particularly those in August and October 2007. Charity Sweet (the 4 th defendant) said she was required by the order of Maddison J to read the claimant's case, prepare a skeleton argument, write a witness statement and pose “any response and counterclaim” in one day – in her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • City of London v Samede and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 22 Febrero 2012
    ...The hearing at first instance in Hall [2011] 1 WLR 504 took eight days and also resulted in a detailed and clear judgment – see at [2010] EWHC 1613. Each case has now also resulted in a full judgment on the application for permission to appeal. There is now, therefore, guidance available fo......
  • R Maria Gallastegui v Westminster City Council The Commissioner for the Metropolis (First Interested Party) The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Second Interested Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 27 Abril 2012
    ...and Citizens of London v Samede and Others [2012] EWCA Civ. 160) or the "Democracy Village protest" on Parliament Square ( Mayor of London v Hall and others [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB), on appeal [2011] 1 WLR 504 and on remission [2011] EWHC 585 (QB)). Those proceedings involved a judicial deter......
  • Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of the Greater London Authority)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 Julio 2010
    ...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 ......
  • City of London v Samede and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 18 Enero 2012
    ...to prevent intrusion.…". In this case, as Mr Forsdick submitted, the facts speak for themselves, as they did in Mayor of London v. Hall [2010] EWHC 1613 (see paras 104 and 105 in the judgment of Griffith Williams J). A large number of people are encamped on the highway. There has been no in......
  • 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