Imposing a Condition on the Location of a Public Assembly: The Relevance of ‘Scene’ and the Need for Certainty
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183221138021 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Imposing a Condition on the
Location of a Public Assembly: The
Relevance of ‘Scene’and the Need
for Certainty
Bennett and others v DPP [2022] EWHC 1822
(Admin)
Keywords
Public assembly, location, breach of condition, criminal offence, certainty
The appellants were part of an Extinction Rebellion protest which took place on Waterloo Bridge on 19
April 2019. On the same day, other protests took place in locations across London, including Parliament
Square, Oxford Circus and Marble Arch. The officer in charge of policing at Waterloo Bridge (the Bronze
Commander) was made aware of disruption being caused by protesters’actions, such as motorised vehi-
cles being unable to cross the bridge. Since she had formed the view that the public assembly may result
in serious disruption to the life of the community, she exercised her power under s.14(1) of the Public
Order Act 1986 to give the following direction:
I hereby give a direction imposing conditions on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly, which
appear to me to be necessary to prevent serious disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation. Anyone assem-
bling at the Extinction Rebellion protest ‘This is an emergency’assembly which is taking place at Waterloo
Bridge and wish to continue with their assembly must go to Marble Arch, the site of ‘This is an emergency’
protest site.
Whilst the direction contained an error in that the name of the protest at Marble Arch was ‘Act
Now’rather than ‘This is an emergency’, it was accepted that nothing turned on this. It was also
accepted by the appellants that they were aware of the s.14(1) direction at the material time. Since
they refused to move after it had been issued, they were arrested and later charged and convicted
by magistrates of having knowingly failed to comply with a condition imposed upon a public assem-
dismissed by the Crown Court at Southwark. The appellants appealed against that decision by
case stated. Four questions were posed for the opinion of the High Court: (a) was the Crown
Court wrong in law and/or irrational to find that the direction was reasonably necessary and propor-
tionate to prevent serious disorder?; (b) was the Court wrong in law to hold that the direction did not
impermissibly prohibit future assemblies?; (c) was the Court wrong in law to hold that the direction
did not lack legal certainty?; and (d) was the Court wrong in law to hold that a lawful condition
is not part of the ‘scene’?
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 86(6) 499–502
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183221138021
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial