The test case decision marked crucial legal backing for Michael Howards'.(the Home Secretary of the time) comprehensive law and order attack on us.
This is pretty grim news and is a bad for democracy and the right to peaceful protest and/or gather together and have parties and stuff..
The 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act brought in a new criminal offence of "trespassory assembly" through an amendment to the 1986 Public Order Act.
The first two people charged with the new offence were Dr Margaret Jones, a university lecturer from Bristol, and 26-year-old student Richard Lloyd, who took part in a peaceful roadside demonstration at Stonehenge, Wilts, in June last year, while an order made under the Act banning assemblies of 20 or more persons was in force.
They were found guilty by Salisbury magistrates. Dr Jones was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 legal costs, while Mr Lloyd was ordered to pay £300 in fines and costs.
But their convictions were overturned on appeal to Salisbury Crown Court in January, which decided there was no case to answer.
High Court ruled the Crown Court had got the law wrong and ordered a re-hearing.
Lord Justice McCowan said the Crown Court had appeared to accept "that any assembly on the highway is lawful as long as it is peaceful and non-obstructive of the highway.
"In my judgment, however, that is mistaken."
The judge said it left out of account the fact that an order had been made to prohibit the holding of a demonstration for the right of access to Stonehenge within a four-mile radius of the ancient monument between May 29 and June1.
A demonstration had taken place on the grass verge at the side of the A344 beside the perimeter fence.
The judge said: "In my judgment, the prosecution need prove no more than that the assembly consisted of 20 or more persons and that the particular person accused was taking part in that assembly, knowing it to be prohibited by an order under section 14A of the 1986 Public Order Act."
By Terence Shaw, Legal Correspondent
TWO demonstrators who were arrested after a peaceful protest at Stonehenge are to face retrials after a ruling in the High Court yesterday. In a judgment confirming the wide scope of new public order powers, judges ruled that it made no difference that the protesters were on a public highway and were acting peacefully and not obstructing the road. They allowed an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a Salisbury Crown Court decision to quash the convictions of Dr Margaret Jones, a lecturer from Bristol, and Richard Lloyd, a 26-year-old student.
The pair, who took part in the protest at Stonehenge in June 1995, were the first to be charged with "trespassory assembly" under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. This amended the 1986 Public Order Act by giving the police powers to seek a local authority order banning for up to four days assemblies of 20 or more people on land to which the public have no rights of access or only limited rights. Dr Jones was convicted by Salisbury magistrates, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 costs. Mr Lloyd was ordered to pay £300 in fines and costs.
In January last year their appeals were upheld after a court ruled that, because they acted peacefully and had not obstructed the road, they had not exceeded the public's limited right of access to the highway. But Lord Justice McCowan said yesterday that the court had been "mistaken" in appearing to accept the argument that any assembly on the highway was lawful as long as it was peaceful and non-obstructive. He said the prosecution need prove no more than that the assembly consisted of 20 or more people and that the accused was taking part, knowing it to have been prohibited under the Act. Mr Justice Collins said that holding a meeting or demonstration on the highway, however peaceable, had nothing to do with the right of passage permitted under the law. "Such activities may, if they do not cause an obstruction, be tolerated. But there is no legal right to pursue them," said the judge.
Both Dr Jones and Mr Lloyd have asked the judges to certify that their case raises an issue of public importance and to give them leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Dr Jones said that, if they failed to get an "enlightened judgment", they would take their case to the European Human Rights Commission. She said: "Peaceful protest, protests of all kinds, whether to prevent the closing of a hospital wing or in a trades union context, are affected. John Wadham, director of Liberty, said "To say it is a form of trespass seems extraordinary."
By Alex Bellos
PEOPLE attending a wide range of peaceful gatherings, including environmental protesters and ramblers' groups, can be arrested for doing nothing more than walking down the road, following a High Court judgment yesterday. Under the offence of trespassory assembly, police can ban groups of 20 or more meeting in a particular area if they fear "serious disruption to the life of the community", even if the meeting is non-obstructive and non-violent. The court's ruling was criticised by Liberty, the public rights pressure group. Its director, John Wadham, said: "A peaceful, non-obstructive gathering is a reasonable use of a public highway. To say that it is a form of trespass seems extraordinary." Campaigners fear the law could be used to target outdoor activities such as rambling and parties, as well as demonstrations.
In a test case relating to a demonstration at Stonehenge in 1995, Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins said that two trespassory assembly convictions should not have been overturned because the offence overrules any right of way on the public highway. The case concerned Margaret Jones, a university lecturer, aged 46, and Richard Lloyd, a student, aged 25, both from Bristol, who went to Stonehenge to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Battle of the Beanfield, in which protesters clashed with police at the monument. An order under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 had been made by the Chief Constable of Wiltshire, banning groups of 20 people from a four-mile radius around the monument.
Even though the demonstration did not breach the perimeter fence, when the police judged that there were more than 20 people involved they asked the crowd to disperse. Some refused and Dr Jones, Mr Lloyd and one other were arrested. The pair were the first people to be convicted of trespassory assembly by magistrates, but were cleared on appeal at Salisbury Crown Court in January last year.
By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent
PEACEFUL protests on public highways can be banned by the police, the High Court ruled yesterday in a test case of new public order legislation. The ruling gives Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, crucial legal backing for the new criminal offence of "trespassory assembly", which is aimed at curbing protests on public roads.
Margaret Jones, a university lecturer, and Richard Lloyd, a student, were the first people charged with the offence after they were arrested during a peaceful demonstration at Stonehenge, They took part in the demonstration even though an order was in force banning assemblies of 20 people or more. They were found guilty at Salisbury Magistrates' Court and Dr Jones was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £l00 costs. Mr Lloyd was ordered to pay £300 in fines and costs The convictions were overturned on appeal to Salisbury Crown Court, where it was ruled that there was no case to answer.
Lord Justice McCowan, sitting with Mr Justice Collins, ruled that the Crown Court had got the law wrong and ordered a rehearing. Lord Justice McCowan said the Crown Court appeared to accept "that any assembly on the highway is lawful as long as it is peaceful and non-obstructive of the highway; in my judgment, however, that is mistaken". He said it left out of account the fact that an order had been made to prohibit the holding of a demonstration for the right of access to Stonehenge within a four-mile radius between May 20 and June 1. A demonstration had taken place on the grass verge of the A344, beside the perimeter fence. Lord Justice McCowan said: "The prosecution need prove no more than that the assembly consisted of 20 or more persons and that the particular person accused was taking part in that assembly, knowing it to be prohibited by an order under section 14A of the 1986 Public Order Act."
Dr Jones, a lecturer at Bristol University, said the ruling was bad for democracy. "The judgment denies any right to assemble freely in a public place if the police seek and obtain a banning order from a local authority under the new Act on the grounds that there is danger of disruption to the life of the community. Peaceful protest, protests of all kinds, whether to prevent the closing of a hospital wing or in a trade union context, are all affected."
Although the court said the case should go back to the Crown Court for a rehearing before a differently constituted bench, the Crown Prosecution Service will be considering whether to continue now that it has established the legality of the new police powers to curb public demonstrations, even when peaceful and posing no threat to public order.
John Wadham, director of the civil rights pressure group Liberty, said: "A peaceful, non-obstructive gathering is a reasonable use of a public highway. To say that it is a form of trespass seems extraordinary. It must be one of the more bizarre consequences of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act."
Patricia Wynn Davies, Legal Affairs Editor
There is no legal right to hold peaceful, non-obstructive demonstrations on the highway, and the police are entitled to use new public-order powers to stop them, two senior judges declared yesterday in a far-reaching test case. The case, which contradicts what many people have always viewed as a "right", arose out of the clearing of the first two people charged with "trespassory assembly" under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, and was the first test of whether the police could use their new powers to clamp down on peaceful protests. Giving backing to the new offence, the judges ruled that "any" assembly of at least 20 people would fall foul of it, however peaceable and non-obstructive and whether or not it threatened public order.
Margaret Jones, a lecturer in literature studies at the University of the West of England, and Richard Lloyd, a housing assistant, had taken part in a peaceful roadside demonstration alongside the Stonehenge perimeter fence while an order under the Act, banning an assembly of 20 or more people, was in force. They were found guilty by Salisbury magistrates last year, but he convictions were overturned on appeal to the Crown Court, which said the assembly was lawful because it was peaceful and did not obstruct the highway.
That view was decisively rejected by Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins, who upheld an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions and invited the Crown to pursue the charges again before a differently constituted Crown Court. Emphasising the impact of the 1994 Act, on which the Labour Party abstained, Lord Justice McCowan said the lower court's judgment "leaves out of account the existence of the order." Mr Justice Collins said the holding of peaceable meetings, demonstrations or vigils on the highway might he "tolerated" if they did not cause obstructions, but there is no legal right to pursue them."
While this dispute concerned Stonehenge, people could be at risk of prosecution if - without obstructing other members of the public - 20 or more of them congregated outside a fur shop, a school where parents were protesting over discipline. or the offices of a council contemplating building on the green belt. All the police would need to do would be to seek an order under the Act from the local council. Dr Jones said: "This ruling supports something which is illiberal, undemocratic and wrong. Peaceful protest, protests of all kinds, whether to prevent the closing of a hospital wing or in a trades-union context are all affected."
Liberty, the civil-rights pressure group, called for a Bill of Rights to defend the freedom to demonstrate. John Wadham, the director, said: "A peaceful, non-obstructive gathering is a reasonable use of a public highway. To say that it is a form of trespass seems extraordinary." The case is likely to reach the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Justice Collins yesterday rejected an argument that the ruling would breach Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom of peaceful assembly. He insisted that there was still an "ability" to hold a peaceful assembly. But the ruling means that this "ability" will always be in the gift of the police.
Alan Lodge / Tash: ... tash@gn.apc.org