R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 640 (Admin) |
| Date | 23 March 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
: [2005] EWHC 640 (Admin)
Court and Reference: Administrative Court, CO/6292/2004
: Bean J
Appearances: K Hossein-Bor (instructed by Christian Khan) for B; P Cowan (instructed by Weightmans) for the Chief Constable
: Whether the Chief Constable was entitled to impose particular conditions on a demonstration
: A group known as "Victory to the Intifada" had, prior to November 2004, been demonstrating outside the Marks & Spencer store in the pedestrianised shopping area in Manchester City Centre every Saturday for about 4 years. The purpose of the demonstration was to highlight the support given by Marks & Spencer to the Government of Israel and to urge the public to boycott goods on sale at the store. In the summer of 2004 a counter-demonstration was formed outside the store, whose purpose was to express support for the Government of Israel and opposition to the Victory to the Intifada group.
On 25 November 2004 the Chief Constable personally wrote to a member of the group and set out conditions that were to be imposed on the demonstration under s. 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 between 29 November 2004 and 3 January 2005. The reason for the conditions was that the Chief Constable believed that they were necessary to prevent disruption to the life of the community in the City of Manchester or serious public disorder. The conditions set out the location for the demonstration (half a mile away from the Marks & Spencer store), the time period (no more than 3 hours, commencing at noon) and the maximum number of demonstrators (20). An identical letter was sent to a representative of the counter-demonstration.
B, who was involved in Victory to the Intifada, sought judicial review of the Chief Constable's decision, contending that it was disproportionate and a violation of the demonstrators' rights under Arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He contended that the Chief Constable had given insufficient reasons, and that his belief that a direction was necessary to prevent serious public disorder or serious disruption to the life of the community was not reasonable.
1. The claimant, Louis Brehony, challenges by way of this application for judicial review a decision of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester imposing a condition prohibiting him and fellow members of a group known as "Victory to the Intifada" from demonstrating outside the Marks & Spencer store in Manchester City Centre on Saturdays from 29 November 2004 until 3 January 2005. This group had been demonstrating every Saturday outside the store for about 4 years. The store is in the pedestrianised shopping area in the centre of the city.
2. The purpose of the demonstration, as it is put in the grounds in support of the claim, was to highlight the support given by Marks & Spencer to the Government of Israel and to urge the public to boycott goods on sale at the store. The claimant had been a member of the group for about 2 years.
3. The group handed out literature, including a petition to which passers-by could add their names and addresses and make a donation if they thought fit, and also some members of the group held up banners or placards.
4. The petition is a good example of the literature. It says:
"Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!
Solidarity with Palestine!
Victory to the Intifada!
Isolate the Zionist State!
Boycott Israeli Goods! Boycott Marks & Spencer!"
It goes on to give details in a few lines of the nature of the Intifada and why it was happening. The literature was partly directed against the Government of Israel and in support of the Palestinian Intifada and partly called more specifically for a boycott of Marks & Spencer. In the summer of 2004 a counter-demonstration was formed outside the store, whose purpose was to express support for the Government of Israel and opposition to the Victory to the Intifada group.
5. The usual place where the Victory to the Intifada group demonstrated was not immediately outside the main entrance to the store, but at the corner of the store conveniently close by. That location was specified in a notice given by the Chief Constable under s. 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, which was not opposed.
6. However, on 25 November 2004, a letter signed by the Chief Constable personally was sent to Mr Derbyshire who, like the claimant, was a member of the group. The first line of his address is given as: "Defend the M&S Picket Campaign", but there is no dispute that this is the Victory to the Intifada group by another description. Mr Derbyshire, the claimant and their colleagues were informed as follows:
"I am aware that over recent months demonstrations have been taking place outside Marks and Spencer's in Manchester City Centre and I would like to assure you that Greater Manchester Police are fully committed to ensuring that peaceful protests are allowed to take place safely in normal circumstances.
The Christmas festive period is due to commence at the end of November, which attracts large numbers of people to the City Centre each day. Experience has shown that the number of visitors to the City trebles at this time of year thereby increasing the potential for disruption.
Whilst the freedom to demonstrate is important, so too is the freedom of people to go about their normal daily business with a minimum of disruption. Accordingly, every effort is made to ensure that a balance is struck between the rights and freedom of those taking part in an event and those living and working close by.
As the Chief Constable for the Greater Manchester area, it is my duty to formally notify you under s. 14 Public Order Act 1986 that between 29 November 2004 and 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baroness Jenny Jones v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...particular scene”, which made it clear that “it is to a particular procession that the conditions must relate.” 59 In R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2005] EWHC 640 (Admin), the claimant challenged a condition imposed by the chief officer of police under section 14(2)(......
-
Imposing a Condition on the Location of a Public Assembly: The Relevance of ‘Scene’ and the Need for Certainty
...they had no right to do.In one of the rare s.14 cases, Brehony (R on the application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester[2005] EWHC 640 (Admin), Bean J noted that of the four original triggers, all bar that which relates tointimidation were non-fault based (at [16]). In other words,......
-
Imposing a Condition on the Location of a Public Assembly: The Relevance of ‘Scene’ and the Need for Certainty
...they had no right to do.In one of the rare s.14 cases, Brehony (R on the application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester[2005] EWHC 640 (Admin), Bean J noted that of the four original triggers, all bar that which relates tointimidation were non-fault based (at [16]). In other words,......