References: [2013] EWHC 195 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Moses LJ and Gloster J
Ratio: Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement’s demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster Magistrates’ Court of breaching conditions imposed under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 in respect of the route the march should take. They said that they had left the march and were on a new route of their own.
Held: The District Judge was right to find that they had not left the March, and: ‘Those participating in the public procession were entitled to leave it, but they were not entitled to move from the route of the procession whilst they remained as participants in it. I’
The Court said: ‘It is important to note that the conditions imposed pursuant to the power confirmed under section 12(1) are conditions which relate, as the section indicates, to a particular public procession. ‘Public procession’ is defined in section 16 of the Act to mean a procession in a public place. That it relates to a particular public procession is made clear by the identification within section 12(1) of the grounds upon which conditions may be imposed. The circumstances and the route on the basis of which a police officer’s belief of risk must reasonably be founded route relate to a particular public procession.’
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 12
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Powlesland v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 3846 (Admin), (2014) 178 JP 67, [2014] 1 WLR 2984, [2014] WLR(D) 139, WLRD)
The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession. - Cited – Jones and Others v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Admn (Bailii, [2019] EWHC 2957 (Admin), Bailii Summary)
The claimants, seeking to demonstrate support for the extinction rebellion movement by demonstrating in London, now challenged an order made under the 1986 Act restricting their right to demonstrate.
Held: The XRAU was not a public assembly at . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 08 November 2019
Ref: 471020
The post Jukes and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 16 Jan 2013 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.