Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: Statutory Interpretation
| Date | 01 April 2006 |
| Published date | 01 April 2006 |
| Author | Nick Taylor |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.2.103 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: Statutory
Interpretation
R (on the Application of Brian Haw) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department, Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police Service [2005]
EWHC 2061
Since June 2001 Brian Haw has been conducting a demonstration in
Parliament Square, Westminster. He continues to live on the pavement
in the Square and displays a large number of placards. Initially, his
intention was to protest about sanctions against Iraq, and latterly it has
been to protest against the Government’s policy on Iraq. His protest has
been the subject of previous legal action. In 2002 an attempt by West-
minster City Council to obtain an injunction requiring him to remove
his placards, on the basis that they were an obstruction of the highway,
failed, and the protest has continued. In April 2005 the Serious Orga-
nised Crime and Police Act 2005 was given Royal Assent. Sections
132–138 are designed to give the police a measure of control over
demonstrations which take place within a designated area in the vicinity
of Parliament Square. The Act does not forbid the conduct of demonstra-
tions within the designated area, but it requires any person who intends
to organise a demonstration in that area to apply to the police for
authorisation to do so, whereupon the police may impose conditions, so
as to prevent hindrance to any person wishing to enter or leave the
Palace of Westminster, hindrance of the proper operation of Parliament,
serious public disorder, serious damage to property, disruption to the life
of the community, a security risk in any part of the designated area, and
risk to safety of members of the public. Any breach of the provisions will
be a criminal offence.
Haw contended that, as enacted, it does not apply to him because his
demonstration started before the Act came into force. He contended that
the Commencement Order, which purported to alter the Act so as to
make it apply to demonstrations which began before the Act came into
force and continue after it had come into force, was ultra vires. He sought
an order quashing those parts of the Commencement Order purporting
to make the Act apply to him and a declaration that he was not required
to seek authorisation for his continuing demonstration.
H
ELD
,
AN ORDER WAS GRANTED QUASHING THOSE PARTS OF THE
C
OM-
MENCEMENT
O
RDER WHICH PURPORT TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THE
2005
A
CT TO CONTINUING DEMONSTRATIONS
(
ARTS
3(1)(
P
), (5)
AND
4(2)),
AND
DECLARING THAT THE CLAIMANT WASNOT REQUIRED TO SEEK AUTHORISA-
TION FOR THE CONTINUING PROTEST
,
PURSUANT TO SS
132–138.
Section 132 creates the criminal offence which provides the principal
means by which the provisions are to be enforced. Subsection (1)
provides:
103
To continue reading
Request your trial