R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice May,LORD JUSTICE MAY |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 253 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2902/2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 19 February 2004 |
: [2004] EWHC 253 (Admin)
Court and Reference:Administrative Court, CO/2902/2003
: May LJ and Harrison J
Appearances: M Fordham (instructed by Bindman & Partners) for L; S Freeland QC and J Johnson (instructed by Gloucestershire Constabulary) for the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire; S Readhead (instructed by Force Solicitor, Thames Valley Police) for the Chief Constable of Thames Valley; J Beggs (instructed by Directorate of Legal Services, New Scotland Yard) for the Commissioner
: Whether officers had been entitled to stop coaches of protestors attending a demonstration; whether they had been entitled forcibly to return the coaches under escort to London
: On 22 March 2003 a protest against the war in Iraq took place at RAF Fairford, a base used by the US Air Force. Earlier protests at Fairford had involved damage being caused to the perimeter fence, military vehicles and runway approach lights, fuel supplies being contaminated, trespassers having to be ejected and protesters being arrested. One person was found with the ingredients for a suspected incendiary device. In early March 2003, websites of Gloucester Weapons Inspectors and the Wombles (an anarchist group) referred to the planned protest on 22 March as "Judgment Day - a National day of Action at Fairford". Protesters were invited to join the "citizens inspection of the biggest bomber base in Europe". A police intelligence assessment considered that the recruitment of protesters could be seen as an ideal opportunity to infiltrate individuals or groups with terrorist intent. On 21 March 2003, B52 bombers began to fly operationally from Fairford.
Police believed that hard-line protestors would attend on 22 March with an intention to engage in violent protest and to attempt to enter the airbase; they felt that there was a high risk of incursion onto the base that that the 13 mile perimeter could not be adequately or safely policed. The police had a detailed plan to enable a peaceful protest to take place and to minimise the risk of serious public disorder. A stop and search authorisation was granted under s. 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 because it was reasonably believed that incidents of serious violence might take place.
At 10.45am on 22 March, the officer in charge, Ch Supt Lambert, received information that 3 coaches and a van were en route from London carrying items and equipment to disrupt the protest and gain entry to the airbase, and that the protesters were the Wombles. He directed that the vehicles should be stopped and searched; and that if offending items were found, they would be seized and the vehicles sent back towards London. The occupants were not to be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace at that particular time because he did not consider there to be an imminent breach of the peace.
The vehicles were stopped less than 5km from the perimeter of RAF Fairford. When passengers left the coaches, they tried to conceal their identities. One person who was suspected of having caused damage at Fairford on 23 February was arrested. A large number of items were seized, including masks and protective clothing, spray paint, 2 pairs of scissors, a smoke bomb and 5 shields. Ms Laporte was amongst those on the coaches.
At 2pm Mr Lambert was informed of the property found on the coaches, the mode of dress of some of the occupants and the arrest of one person. He concluded that the persons on the coaches were heading for RAF Fairford and were likely to cause a breach of the peace. He gave instructions for the occupants of the coaches to be escorted back to London to prevent them finding another route back to RAF Fairford. The coaches left under escort at 2.30pm and, at 4.55pm, Ms Laporte got off the coach at Shepherd's Bush.
Ms Laporte challenged the decisions to prevent her from travelling to the demonstration at Fairford and to force her to return to London, detaining her in the process. She argued that there was no imminent threat of a breach of the peace and that her detention and forcible return to London infringed her right to liberty under Art 5 of the Convention and her rights of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly under Arts 10 and 11. She further argued that there was no right of detention without arrest to prevent an anticipated breach of the peace where there was no intention to bring the person detained before a magistrate. She further argued that it was unlawful to take a blanket approach to all of the passengers without making any attempt, by questioning or facial recognition, to distinguish between them. She also submitted that, even if the police had been justified in turning the coach passengers away, forced return from Gloucestershire to London was wholly disproportionate.
The Chief Constable argued that Mr Lambert reasonably apprehended that, if the coaches were permitted to proceed to Fairford, some at least of their occupants would cause or contribute to a breach of the peace there, and that on this basis the forced return of the coaches had been lawful. He submitted that the detention of L was justified under Art 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(c). He further argued that judicial review was inappropriate and that a private law claim should be brought.
Introduction
1. On Saturday 22 March 2003, the claimant, Jane Laporte, was one of about 120 passengers on one of 3 coaches travelling from London to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. She and the other coach passengers wanted to join a demonstration at Fairford against the US led war against Iraq to which she was utterly opposed. Some way short of Fairford, near the town of Lechlade, the coaches were stopped at a lay-by by the Gloucestershire Police. The police searched the coaches and found a number of items which they seized. On instructions from Ch Supt Lambert, the coaches with their passengers were then sent back to London under police escort without being allowed to stop on the way.
2. In this application for judicial review, the claimant contends that the actions of the Gloucestershire Police were unlawful. She says that it was unlawful to prevent her from travelling to the demonstration at Fairford and unlawful to force her to return to London, detaining her in the process. She says that preventing her attending the demonstration infringed her freedom of peaceful assembly under Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and her freedom of expression under Art 10. Her detention and forcible return to London infringed her right to liberty under Art 5 of the Convention. She claims declarations to that effect and damages.
3. Richards J gave permission to apply for judicial review. He reserved for the decision of this court whether judicial review is an appropriate procedure. The defendant articulates - somewhat mutedly in the face of lack of enthusiasm from the court - a submission that this is in substance a false imprisonment claim entitling the parties to trial by jury. He submits with somewhat greater persuasion that the issues are more suitable for a witness action with full disclosure and oral evidence, including cross examination. In my judgment, judicial review is not inappropriate. As to disclosure, I doubt if the claimant has any documents of critical importance. The defendant has been able to put all their relevant documents before the court in evidence. There is some force in the plea for oral evidence, but the claimant does not challenge the factual accuracy or good faith of the defendant's evidence. Since the claimant has chosen judicial review proceedings, the defendant's evidence is to be taken as it stands.
4. The claimant does not contend that the police actions in stopping and searching the coaches and seizing items found were unlawful. For these actions, there were appropriate authorisations under ss. 60 and 60AA of theCriminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which the claimant does not challenge.
5. The defendant contends that the police actions in preventing the claimant from travelling further and forcibly returning her to London were lawful and proportionate to prevent likely breaches of the peace. The police did not arrest the claimant, but it is accepted that they detained her. The claimant contends that there is no lawful power of detention falling short of arrest.
6. In addition to the defendant, the Chief Constables of Thames Valley Police and Metropolitan Police were represented as interested parties. Their officers participated in escorting the coaches back to London. It is accepted that they did so at the instance of the Gloucestershire Police. The interested parties made no independent submissions except to discourage the court from considering or referring to wider questions relating to police containment of demonstrations. I understand that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is concerned with other proceedings arising out of a police containment operation in London on 1 May 2001. This court indicated during the course of the hearing that it would confine its observations to the facts of the present case, and I do so.
Facts
7. The background to the events of 22 March 2003 from the defendant's perspective was as follows. RAF Fairford is a base used by the US Air Force. In the last months of 2002, war with Iraq appeared probable. On 14 December 2002, there were protests at Fairford. There were 500 people there. Damage was caused to the perimeter fence and 30 trespassers were ejected from the site. On 26 January 2003, there was a further protest at Fairford attended by 1500 people. There were 4 arrests and the perimeter fence was again damaged.
8. On 15 February 2003, several protest groups including "Disobedience Against War" advertised an intended protest demonstration at Fairford on 22 March. On 20 February 2003, US led military activity against Iraq began with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chee Soon Juan and others v Public Prosecutor
... ... Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2007] 2 AC 105 (“ ... ...
-
orthern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People's application
...the court should take the evidence where it stands against the applicant. In Regina (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Glocestershire (2004) 2 All ER 874 at paragraph 3 May LJ said: “Since the claimant has chosen judicial review proceedings, the defendant’s evidence is to be taken as it stands.......
-
R (Federation of Tour Operators and Others) v HM Treasury and Others
...the Government to demonstrate that a measure that engages A1P1 satisfies the requirement of proportionality: c.f. R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2007] 2 WLR 46, [2006] UKHL 55 at paragraphs 38 and 105 Formally, APD is a tax imposed on aircraft operators. As......
-
Adam Castle, Rosie Castle, Sam Eaton v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...law as it relates to public order events such as the present. Issue 3 – the power to contain at common law 54 In R (Laporte) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2006] UKHL 55; [2007] 2 AC 105, the House of Lords considered the lawfulness of a decision to turn back demonstrat......
-
Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and Proportionality of Preventive Action
...of the lawfulness of the policeactions in stopping the vehicles and then escorting them back to Lon-don. The Divisional Court ([2004] EWHC 253 (Admin)) ruled:1. the police had been entitled to stop the vehicles to prevent abreach of the peace and had been entitled to prevent the protestorsp......
-
Apprehended Breach of the Peace: Lawfulness and Proportionality of Preventive Action
...to return to London under police escort withouthaving had the opportunity to attend the demonstration. The DivisionalCourt ([2004] EWHC 253 (Admin)) and the Court of Appeal ([2004]EWCA Civ 1639, (2005) 69 JCL 109) both held that the police had beenentitled at common law to stop the coaches ......