Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: Statutory Interpretation
| Date | 01 October 2006 |
| Published date | 01 October 2006 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.5.383 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: Statutory
Interpretation
R (on the application of Haw) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
[2006] EWCA Civ 532
Since June 2001, Brian Haw had been conducting a demonstration in
Parliament Square, Westminster. In April 2005 the Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA) 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. SOCPA 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 before the Divisional Court that,
as enacted, the relevant statutory provisions did not apply to him
because his demonstration started before the Act came into force. He
contended that the Commencement Order (SI 2005 No. 1521 C66),
which purported to alter the Act so as to make it apply to demonstra-
tions which began before the Act came into force and continue after it
had come into force, was ultra vires. In the Divisional Court ([2005]
EWHC 2061, (2006) 70 JCL 103), the majority concluded that s. 132(1),
read alone as enacted, clearly did not create a criminal offence such as
would apply to Haw’s continuing demonstration. As altered by the Com-
mencement Order, it did so apply. Article 4(2) of the Commencement
Order, which altered the effect of s. 132(1), so as to make a person
conducting a demonstration which began before August 1, 2005 and
continued after it, criminally liable for conduct which, but for that
alteration, would not be criminal could not be described as a provision
made for a transitional purpose in connection with the coming into force
of the Act. A provision which had that effect was an amendment.
Section 178 did not carry a power to amend and art. 4(2) was therefore
found to be ultra vires. Permission to appeal was subsequently granted on
paper by Mummery LJ.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
,setting aside the orders of the Divi-
sional Court. On the true construction of ss 132–138 of the Act, Parlia-
ment intended to include demonstrations, whenever they started. This
383
To continue reading
Request your trial