Briefly explain the changes to the right to non-violent protest under the Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order). What are the main criticisms of the Bill, Part 3?
ASSESSMENT
THE SCENARIO
The Order of Hippogriff (‘OH’) is an international environmental movement using non-violent civil disobedience as a means of protest. The Order of Hippogriff Cambridge (‘OHC’) is one of the OH regional groups, which organises civil disobedience actions on climate change across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
According to the OH’s official website, the OH intended to run ‘The Order of Hippogriff April Rebellion’ (‘OHAR’) between Monday 11 April to Saturday 23 April 2022. In response to the unsatisfactory result at the COP26 conference on climate change, the OHAR seeks to cause inconvenience to the general public and put a strain on the police force so that politicians become aware of climate change issues.
On 9 April 2022, a document appeared on OH’s official website headed ‘Everybody Now – on an unprecedented scale’ and noted that protests would take place in 100 areas around the world, including Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. On the early morning of Monday 18 April, the following post appeared on the OHC’s Facebook page:
Kingsley Shacklebolt, the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary (the head of the local police force covering Cambridgeshire and Peterborough), knew from his experience that the OHC protests would cause massive disruption to commuters and local people in Greater Cambridge. He also knew that OHC protesters often move between places quickly, contacting each other by phone.
In order to limit such disruption, at 7pm on 18 April 2022, Chief Constable Shacklebolt issued the following condition (‘the condition’) under section 14(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.
‘Any assembly linked to the Order of Hippogriff “April Rebellion” within Cambridgeshire and Peterborough must disperse and cease their action by 9pm 18th April 2022’.
This condition was immediately publicised and widely spread via Cambridgeshire Constabulary’s Twitter account. However, it did not completely stop the OHC’s protests by the 9pm I8th April deadline.
Jamie and Jody, both active supporters of OH, were arrested at Trumpington St, Cambridge at 11am on 19 April for breach of ‘the condition’ when they were participating in a mass cycling demonstration as part of the OH action. Jamie and Jody would like to file a claim to have the condition made by Chief Constable Shacklebolt judicially reviewed.
YOUR TASK
Looking at the scenario above, answer the following, drawing on relevant legislation, relevant case law, the ECHR rights engaged and the grounds for judicial review.
- Which of Jamie and Jody’s rights are engaged here? Explain by referring to the European Convention on Human Rights Articles set out in Schedule 1 Human Rights Act 1998. Set out the scope of the right to and non-violent protest and how it may be balanced with other interests, such as serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. Illustrate your answer with relevant case law.
- Was ‘the condition’ set by Chief Constable Shacklebolt the lawful exercise of the power under 14(1) of the Public Order Act 1986? Explain by referring to Jamie and Jody’s right to protest and the legal framework under the Public Order Act 1986. Highlight which judicial review ‘grounds’ Jamie and Jody are likely to be seeking to argue their case under.
- Briefly explain the changes to the right to non-violent protest under the Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order). What are the main criticisms of the Bill, Part 3? Support your answer with relevant critique from the House of Lords and others.
