House of Lords
| Author | J.A. Coutts |
| Published date | 01 June 1999 |
| Date | 01 June 1999 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300303 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House
of
Lords
Mob Rule and the Rule of Law
RvChief
Constable
of
Sussex,
ex pITF
Ferry
Ltd [1998] 3 WLR 1260
Although
the
events
out
of
which
the
relevant facts in this case arose
occurred
some
years ago,
they
will be
within
the
recollection of
most
persons. In
the
belief
that
the
export
of livestock from England to
the the
Continent
meant
great cruelty to
the
livestock,
animal
rights activists
decided that, by public protests
and
demonstrations,
they
would
attempt
to bring
that
trade to
an
end.
The
demonstrations
at
the
usual
port
(Dover) led
the
main
ferry companies to
suspend
those shipments,
not
because of
any
acceptance of
the
protestors' views,
but
because of
the
damage
which
the
demonstrators
did to
the
companies'
normal
services.
In consequence, a
group
of farmers
and
hauliers formed
the
company
which
was
the
applicant in
the
present
proceedings, to take a
time
charter
of a vessel in
which
to carry
on
their
lawful trade by lawful
means
through
the
port
of
Shoreham.
They did so
with
the
prior
agreement
of
the
police
and
the
local authority,
but
the
demonstrations
led to damage to,
and
the
destruction of, vehicles
and
to
injury
to
the
drivers,
the
police
and
others,
and
the
cost of extra policing rose to
£l!m
per
week.
The Chief Constable
thereupon
decided to limit
the
police
protection given to
the
company's
lorries to
two
days a week, so
that
he
might spread
the
funds at his disposal
more
evenly
over
the
county. The
consequence
was
that
the
company,
which
had
already
taken
atime
charter
of
the
vessel, found
that
it could
not
afford to keep it idle in
port
five days a
week
and
was on
the
brink
of insolvency.
It
therefore applied
to
the
High
Court
for judicial review of
the
decisions
taken
by
the
police,
making
the
Chief Constable
(not
the
Home
Office or
the
local police
committee)
the
respondent
to
that
application.
The history of
the
litigation of
the
two
questions
whether
the
Chief
Constable's decisions
were
in accordance
with
the
law
of England
and
whether
they
were
within
the
Treaty obligations of
the
UK (as accepted
by Parliament) was as follows. The Divisional
Court
rejected
the
applica-
tion
as far as it was based in domestic law; it assumed
that
Article 34 of
the
EC Treaty applied to this case,
but
held
that
the
Chief Constable
had
not
established
that
he was
within
Article 36 (which he claimed afforded
him
adefence). As
the
burden
of proving
that
defence lay
on
him,
the
court
quashed
his decisions ([1995] 4 All ER 464; 60 JCL 121). The
Court of Appeal accepted
the
conclusion based
on
domestic
law
and
was
prepared
to assume for
the
purposes of this case
that
Article 34 covered
the
facts of
the
case;
but
it reversed
the
conclusion reached as to
the
operation
of Article 36
and
held
that
the
police
were
within
the
excep-
tion, so
that
the
applicant
company
lost its judicial review (see [1997] 1
WLR 132). On appeal to
the
House of Lords,
on
all
three
questions,
namely, as to
the
operation
of domestic law, as to
the
application of
234
To continue reading
Request your trial