BenjaminBuse

February 6, 2025 Chiara Sarti, Daniel Hall, Phoebe Plummer -v- R #ProtestAppeal #ProtestLaw

From press summary

Introduction

“The judgment explains how s. 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 should be interpreted and applied in protest cases where the protesters’ rights under Article 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) are engaged. Section 7 creates a new offence of interfering with key national infrastructure.”

Facts

“On 15 November 2023, the appellants and 61 others participated in a slow march protest organised by Just Stop Oil on Earl’s Court Road in West London. The slow march began at Earl’s Court Underground station around 10.30 am and the protesters walked towards the junction with Cathcart Road, blocking the entire carriageway. The appellants were arrested between 10.56 am and 10.58 am. At 11.46 am, the protest came to an end with the arrest of the remaining protesters, at which point traffic started flowing again. These roads are designated as “A” roads.”

Court of Appeal noted

“In s. 7, Parliament identified categories of national infrastructure which are essential to national life. Interferences with such infrastructure are particularly likely to have an adverse impact on the lives of other citizens”

“The new offence does not prevent protesters from protesting on public land which is not a highway, or at the side of the road. It also does not prevent them from protesting on the majority of highways. Even on the roads to which it applies, on its proper construction, the offence is likely to be committed only where the protesters’ acts significantly delay the use of the road by others, and where the protesters intend this effect or are reckless as to whether it will ensue” Press summary

From final judgement

The application of the structured approach to s. 7

“That being so, and contrary to the (unexplained) view expressed in the ECHR Memorandum, once the ingredients of the s. 7 offence are made out, s. 7(2)(a) does not require a court to consider whether a conviction would be a proportionate interference with the defendant’s Article 10 or 11 rights. The judge was right in his conclusion to this effect, as he was right to conclude that the defence of reasonable excuse did not arise on the facts of this case.” Final judgment