The Law of Public Meeting1
| Published date | 01 December 1938 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1938.tb00404.x |
| Date | 01 December 1938 |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOl.
I1
DECEMBER,
I938
No.
3
THE
LAW
OF
PUBLIC MEETING1
THE
PROBLEM
HE
fundamental principle of the British Constitution
is
that of democracy. Freedom of association,
as
well
as
freedom of speech are essential to democracy. The
various extensions of the franchise have secured that the
people may make their free choice by election protected by the
provisions
of
the Ballot Act,
1872,
and the legislation against
corrupt and illegal practices. The law
of
public meetings deals
with the legal aspect of public expression
of
opinion by the spoken
word and by demonstration.
Its
object
is
primarily to prevent
and to punish outbreaks of disorder. For this reason Dicey based
his argument upon the assumption that all meetings were lawful
unless the misdemeanour of unlawful assembly was committed
by the participants. This article which attempts to deal in outline
with the powers of the police to control meetings and processions
shows that the offence of unlawful assembly plays only
a
small
part in the potential control over public expression of opinion
which can be exercised by the Administration. A distinction
may be drawn at the outset between liberty to express opinions,
political
or
otherwise, and the liberty which the law affords
as
to choice of time and place. The present article deals with the
latter aspect
of
freedom of speech.
Liberty of speech is conditioned,
as
a
matter of private law,
T
l
This article is based
upon
a
lecture delivered at King’s College, London, in
January.
1938.
I
78
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Dec.,
1938
by the law of libel and slander, irrespective of the place of utter-
ance. Substantially this is true also of the limitations imposed
upon speakers by the criminal law of blasphemy, obscenity and
even sedition. But public law-for such undoubtedly
is
that part
of criminal law which relates to offences against the State and pub-
lic order generally, whatever may be said about offences against
individual persons and their property-without denying liberty
of speech
as
such,
is
concerned to restrict the mode of its exercise
in
public places on several grounds. Speakers in the past have
been prosecuted for riot and kindred offences, of which unlawful
assembly has been the most fruitful
of
judicial decisions, and,
it
so
happens, of obscurity
as
to
the state of the law. To-day with
the recognition that it is the function of the police to prevent
as
well
as
to secure punishment for offences, clashes between the
police and speakers
at
public meetings more often result in
(i)
applications to magistrates to bind over speakers suspected of
likelihood of causing breaches of the peace under the old juris-
diction which dates from
a
fourteenth century statute and perhaps
is
inherent in the commission of the peace-Lunsbzcry
v.
Rileya
;
(ii) charges of obstructing the police in the execution of their duty
under the Prevention of Crimes Acts,
1871
and
1885;
or most
frequently (iii) charges of insulting words or behaviour or of
assault.
But whatever be the technique of legal administration
it
will
be
admitted that the law
is
not entirely clear. This is an inherent
defect in the methods of our common law. That
it
can be cured,
given sufficient measure of public agreement,
is
shown by the
enactment of the Public Order Act,
1936,
though that every public
ill
can be cured by legislation
is
a
proposition to which assent
should not be too readily given. Before then considering the law
it
is
well to inquire
as
to what are the prospects of sufficient agree-
ment
as
to the right attitude of
a
democratic State towards free
expression of opinion by means of public speeches and demon-
strations. A Government of the United Kingdom in the
mid-
twentieth century
is
sufficiently alive to the necessity of listening
to protests against public evils without the Protestants having
to resort to force to secure their ends.
It
is
true that
it
is
only
a
quarter
of
a
century ago that the suffragette movement demon-
strated against the Government with
a
show
of
violence. Nor
can the problems of the Governments in India, or the Adminis-
trations of Palestine and some of the Colonies be overlooked.
But
if
in the present conditions in England
a
Government can
afford to allow the annoury of legal weapons which are available
*
[I9141
3
K.B.
229.
To continue reading
Request your trial