Redmond-Bate v DPP

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date23 July 1999
Date23 July 1999
CourtQueen's Bench Division

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
70 cases
  • Morse v The Police Sc
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 6 May 2011
    ... ... 63 R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2006] UKHL 55 , [2007] 2 AC 105 at [96]–[97] per Lord Carswell. See also Nicol v Director of Public Prosecutions [1996] Crim LR 318 (QB ) per Simon Brown LJ and Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] Crim LR 998(QB) per Sedley LJ ... 64 As to which see the discussion in Brooker at [4] ... 65 As Arnold J in the Court of Appeal thought necessary: at [21] and [27] he emphasised that the “reasonable persons” are the same type of people as ... ...
  • The Queen (on the application of Brian Hicks and Others) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 18 July 2012
    ...provoking violence by others, including violence against the demonstrators themselves. As Sedley LJ put it in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] HRLR 249 at para (20): "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the h......
  • Corinna Zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v HM Juan Carlos Alfonso
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division
    • 6 October 2023
    ...10 expressly protects speech that offends, shocks and disturbs. “Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”: Redmond-Bate v DPP [2000] HRLR 249 [20] per Sedley LJ. viii) Consequently, where Article 10 is engaged, the Court's assessment of whether the conduct crosses the bounda......
  • R (Ghai) v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 8 May 2009
    ... ... The claimant is a man of peace and does not wish to cause provocation. If there were public order problems the authorities could intervene and ultimately arrest those committing a breach of the peace (citing Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 732 ; [2007] HRLR 249 , at [18], per Sedley LJ). The exercise of the claimant's right to have a Hindu cremation would not clash with the rights of persons who chose not to have an open air funeral pyre; their rights would not be disrespected ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
9 books & journal articles
  • Allowing Free Speech and Prohibiting Persecution—A Contemporary Sophie's Choice
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 70-4, August 2006
    • 1 August 2006
    ...is available online at the DCA ‘Human Rights’webpage www.dca.gov.uk/hract/hrafaqs.htm, accessed 14 May 2006.16 Redmond-Bate vDPP [2000] HRLR 249 at 260, per Sedley LJ.17 Ibid. at 249.18 The appeal was heard in mid–1999, the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force inUK law on 2 October 2000.19......
  • Protest Before and During a Pandemic
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 50-4, December 2022
    • 1 December 2022
    ...v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218, 222, Lord Hewart CJ described Beatty v Gillbanks as a ‘somewhat unsatisfactorycase’.56. In Redmond-Bate v DPP (1999) 163 JP 789, Sedley LJ said that he did not understand why Lord Hewart CJ thoughtBeatty v Gillbanks ‘somewhat unsatisfactory’, and that Duncan v Jones......
  • Divisional Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 69-1, February 2005
    • 1 February 2005
    ...Article 10 of The Convention. The balancing act to be doneby the courts is made ever more complex by the judgment in Redmond-Bate v DPP (1999) 163 JP 789, [1999] Crim LR 998, where Sedley LJ heldthat the right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 10 of theConvention is not confined to ......
  • Undesirable Posters and Dubious Symbols: Anglo-German Legal Solutions to the Display of Right-Wing Symbolism and Propaganda
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 75-2, April 2011
    • 1 April 2011
    ...Intention in Adjudication under theHuman Rights Act 1998’ (2006) 26(1) OJLS 179.44 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 3.45 Redmond-Bate v DPP [2000] HRLR 249.46 For a full discussion on common law breach of the peace and its evolution overtime, see Thornton et al., above n. 8 at 6.125.47 Redmond-Bat......
  • Get Started for Free