Part1: Annotated Bibliography
(a) You should identify and properly reference (to exact OSCOLA protocols) eight books – three of which should be annotated.
AW Bradley and KD Ewing: Constitutional and Administrative Law (14th edition, Pearson Education 2007)This is the 14th edition of Bradley and Ewing’s authoritative work and deals with the unwritten constitution of the UK and the intricacies of administrative law in great detail. The authors deal with police powers and public assemblies in chapter 24 which includes discussion of the Human Rights Act. They point out that the influence of Human Rights in this area will not change the course of police powers but rather act as a means to prevent their further growth since 9/11.
Hilaire Barnett: Constitutional and Administrative Law (7th edition, Routledge Cavendish 2008)This book is the 7th edition of another authoritative work on constitutional and administrative law in the United Kingdom. The author approaches the subject of police control and public assemblies in the second half of the book.
Albert V.Dicey: Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th edition, Liberty Fund Inc 1982)A.V. Dicey was the foremost British constitutional jurist of his day. For Dicey, there was no specific right of freedom of assembly or association – it was a by-product of the freedom of the individual to do as they wished so far as it was not prohibited by law. Dicey recognised, therefore, that there were limitations to an individuals’ freedom of assembly, but these were “grounded on the absolute necessity for preserving the King’s peace” (at p.174).
Paul Craig: Administrative Law (6th edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2008) Ewing, KD and Gearty, CA: The Struggle for Civil Liberties: Political Freedom and the Rule of Law in Britain (Oxford University Press 2001)Helen Fenwick: Civil Liberties and Human Rights (3rd edition, Routledge-Cavendish 2002)
Richard Stone: Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights (8th edition, Oxford University Press 2010) David Williams: Keeping the Peace: The Police and Public Order (1st edition, Hutchinson 1967)
(b) You should identify and properly reference (to exact OSCOLA protocols) five journal articles three of which should be annotated.
Neil Parpworth, ‘Public Assemblies and the Statutory Power to Impose Conditions’ in Justice of the Peace & Local Government Law [2000] 164 (20), 376-378
This journal article examines the police powers to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies under the Public Order Act. The article is a case comment on Broadwith v Chief Constable of Thames Valley [2000] Crim.L.R.924 (DC) which concerned s.14(5) and whether a protestor was bound by a Police direction for a prior assembly he had not participated in.
Gabrielle Moore, ‘Policing Protest’ in Criminal Law & Justice Weekly [2011] 175 (1/2), 12This journal article argues that individuals are being denied their right to protest with misapplication of the Public Order Act 1986 s.14 (which gives police officers the authority to impose conditions on individuals if they are of the opinion that criminal acts may result from an assembly).
Sally Ramage, ‘The Right to Protest: Should Police Charge Demonstrators a Fee?’ in Criminal Lawyer [2009] 192, 1-3This article looked at the issue of policing for the group of 20 economic summit in London on 1st April 2009 in London and considers the police tactics of “kettling” and whether this constitutes a deprivation of protestors civil liberties.
Michael Connolly, ‘Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Person: Advance Notice Imposing Conditions on Public Assembly’ in Journal of Civil Liberties [2000] 5(2), 223-230G.T Williams, ‘Processions, Assemblies and the Freedom of the Individual’ in Criminal Law Review [1987] March 167-179
(c) You should identify and properly reference (to exact OSCOLA protocols) twenty cases – the most recent of which should be annotated.
1.Carter v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 2197 (Admin); [2010] 4 All E.R. 990;
This case concerned s.30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 where a police officer with the rank of at least Superintendent has reasonable grounds to believe that members of the public have been intimidate, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the behaviour of two or more members of the public in an area where anti-social behaviour is a problem then authorisation may be given for police officers in uniform to have extra powers. The facts of the case are that in August 2008 the appellant was with a group of other youths who were causing a public nuisance and behaving unacceptably. They were warned by a police patrol not to do so in accordance with a “dispersal order” but the group, after initially complying, got back together and flouted the order and the appellant was arrested and charged. The case at first instance was decided against the defendants: the magistrates had misinterpreted the legislation and thought that oral evidence of the “dispersal order” equated to authorisation under the 2003 Act. The appellate court overturned the conviction for lack of evidence of authorisation under s.30.
2.Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69; [2008] 1 W.L.R. 2723;
3.R. (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55; [2007] 2 A.C. 105; [2007] 2 W.L.R. 46;
4.R. (on the application of Singh) v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2005] EWHC 2840 (Admin); [2006] Po. L.R. 1;
5.R. (on the application of W) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2006] EWCA Civ 458; [2007] Q.B. 399; [2006]
6.University of Oxford v Broughton [2006] EWHC 1233 (Admin); (2006) 103(25) L.S.G. 28 (QBD (Admin))
7.Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] EWCA Civ 989; [2008] Q.B. 660;)) 8. Brogan v United Kingdom (1988) 11 EHRR 1179. Brown v Stott [2003] 1 AC 681; [2001] 2 WLR 817; [2001] 2 All ER 97, PC
10. Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v McGrogan [2002] EWCA Civ 86; [2002] 1 FLR 707
11. De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v The Netherlands (1984) 8 EHRR 20
12. Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333
13. McQuade v Chief Constable Humberside Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1330; [2002] 1 WLR 1347 A
14. McVeigh, O’Neill and Evans v United Kingdom (1981) 5 EHRR 71
15. Maguire v Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 619, CA
16. Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245
17. R v Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16; [2007] 1 AC 136; [2006] 2 WLR 772;
18. R v Kamara [1974] AC 104; [1973] 3 WLR 198; [1973] 2 All ER 1242, HL(E)
19. Thomas v Sawkins [1935] 2 KB 249
20. Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218 Part2: Police Powers of Control of Public Assemblies
The control of public assemblies is becoming an ever more contentious issue in light of recent protests against the Coalition Government and their unpopular austerity measures. The Human Rights Act is beginning to filter into our system of protest and assembly but it cannot yet be said to be presenting a challenge to laws which have long held sway[1]. As Bradley and Ewing observe: “The same vigorous approach to freedom of assembly has not always been adopted in other cases – such as those involving noisy anti-globalisation or angry anti-war protestors. In these cases Convention rights have yielded to other concerns, notably the need to maintain public order under common law rules created long before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998”[2]. The student protests of 2010 were another recent example of kettling and the inability of the human rights act to stop the police using excessive force on public demonstrations.
[1] AW Bradley and KD Ewing: Constitutional and Administrative Law (14th edition, Pearson Education 2007) at p.598
[2] Ibid at p.598
