R (Gallastegui) v Westminster City Council and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2013 |
| Date | 30 January 2013 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Tomlinson
Sections 143 and 145 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 did not generally impair freedom to protest in Parliament Square Gardens, but were carefully targeted to prevent protesters camping with tents or sleeping equipment there. Consequently those provisions were not incompatibl e with the rights to freedom of expression and protest under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 of the Convention was not engaged as the procedure set out in the 2011 Act allowed for access to a court.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing an appeal by the claimant, Maria Gallastegui, against the dismissal by the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division (Sir John Thomas, President and Mr Justice Silber)UNK ([2012] EWHC 1123 (Admin)) of her claim for judicial review of the attempt by the defendant local authority, Westminster City Council, to remove her from her authorised protest site in Parliament Square using sections 143 and 145 of the 2011 Act. Ms Jessica Simor and Ms Samantha Knights for the claimant; Ms Nathalie Lieven, QC and Ms Jacqueline Lean for the defendant local authority; Mr Adam Clemens for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, as an interested party; Mr Jonathan Swift, QC and Ms Deok Joo Rhee for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as an interested party.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the claimant was a peace campaigner who for six years had been carrying out a 24-hour vigil in Parliament Square authorised under section 134 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The appeal concerned whether Part 3 of the 2011 Act was compatible with, inter alia, articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention.
Section 143(1) of the 2011 Act empowered a constable or an "authorised officer" who had reasonable grounds for believing that a person was doing, or was about to do, a "prohibited activity" to direct the person to cease. A "prohibited activity" in the central garden of Parliament Square and the foo tways immediately adjoining it included erecting or keeping in the controlled area "any tent" or any other structure designed or adapted, solely or mainly, to facilitate sleeping or staying in that area.
Section 143(8) provided that a person who "without reasonable excuse" failed to comply...
To continue reading
Request your trial