Legal Notes
| Published date | 01 July 1928 |
| Date | 01 July 1928 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X2800100316 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Notes |
LEGAL NOTES
THE recent Anglo-Egyptian crisis which arose as a result of the introduction
and threatened passage in the Egyptian Legislature of the Bill for regulating
Public Meetings and Demonstrations has drawn attention to a subject in
which police officers in all parts of the Empire are concerned.
The
incident,
whatever may be its political significance, shows how much the powers of the
police in maintaining law and order and in preventing public disturbance
depend upon asound and rational system of law.
The
Egyptian Bill was based upon principles which are repugnant to
British ideas of sound law and good administration, or, indeed, to any rational
system the object of which is to prevent disorder. As was explained in a
recent leading article in the Times, under the proposed Egyptian Law the
organizers of disorderly meetings and members of the public who disobey the
policeman's order to ' move on ' were to incur amaximum penalty of a week's
imprisonment or a fine of
100
piastres. On the other hand the police them-
selves would, under this Bill, be liable for severe penalties in the event of any
error of
judgment
in undertaking preventive action which might
turn
out
to
have been unjustified according to the curious principles inherent in the
provisions of the Bill.
To
quote the Times again, '
bona
fide errors of judg-
ment
on their
part
may be punished by fines 30 times as great, or by terms of
imprisonment 4 times as long, as those which this singular Bill inflicts even
upon
those who convene disorderly meetings in bad faith or with bad inten-
tion.'
The
effect of such provisions would surely fill any conscientious body
of police with despair.
By way of contrast it is interesting to remind ourselves of the way in
which British law deals with the same subject. As was stated in the famous
Bristol Riots Case, every magistrate, constable and police officer in discharge
of his duty in maintaining law and order has authority to command every
other subject to assist him in suppressing a riot, and every man is bound, when
called
upon
to obey the call.
In
other words, everyone is under a
duty
to
assist in maintaining the King's Peace.
The
police, of course, are bound in
the execution of their
duty
to assist the magistrates to suppress riots and to
disperse riotous assemblies.
The
law provides no special penalties for any
error of
judgment
or excess of zeal,
but
if any individual suffers injury as
aresult of unlawful action by the police, he has his remedy at common
law, and police officers may be liable to various kinds of process, e.g.,
action for false imprisonment or proceedings for assault, according to the
circumstances.
The
sound principles of British common law have, generally speaking,
been found sufficient to deal with all ordinary cases of disorder at public
meetings.
If
aperson wilfully disturbs apublic meeting and by persistent
noise or interruption defeats the object of the meeting it seems to be lawful
for the police, quite apart from the statutory powers which will be mentioned
presently, to eject him
(see
Wood 'V. Leadbitter, 13 M. &W.
838;
R. 'V.
Graham. 9 W.R.
738);
but
no unnecessary violence should be used. A
519
To continue reading
Request your trial