“59 Power to make orders (1) A local authority may make a public spaces protection order if satisfied on reasonable grounds that two conditions are met. (2) The first condition is that— (a) activities carried on in a public place within the authority's area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or (b) it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect. (3) The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities— (a) is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature, (b) is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and (c) justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice. (4) A public spaces protection order is an order that identifies the public place referred to in subsection (2) (“the restricted area”) and— (a) prohibits specified things being done in the restricted area, (b) requires specified things to be done by persons carrying on specified activities in that area, or (c) does both of those things. (5) The only prohibitions or requirements that may be imposed are ones that are reasonable to impose in order— (a) to prevent the detrimental effect referred to in subsection (2) from continuing, occurring or recurring, or (b) to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence. (6) A prohibition or requirement may be framed— (a) so as to apply to all persons, or only to persons in specified categories, or to all persons except those in specified categories; (b) so as to apply at all times, or only at specified times, or at all times except those specified; (c) so as to apply in all circumstances, or only in specified circumstances, or in all circumstances except those specified. (7) A public spaces protection order must— (a) identify the activities referred to in subsection (2); (b) explain the effect of section 63 (where it applies) and section 67; (c) specify the period for which the order has effect. (8) A public spaces protection order must be published in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
“Evidence of detrimental effect 44. The evidence and information available to the defendant included the following: (i) Outcomes of a "resident engagement exercise" from 2017; (ii) Evidence collected in the course of an investigation by officers comprising: thirteen formal witness statements; photographs of the activists outside the Centre and excerpts from the Centre's log of incidents; (iii) Evidence packs from GCN; (iv) Evidence packs and submissions from Marie Stopes, BPAS and Sister Supporter; (v) Minutes of officers' meetings with pro-life and prochoice supporters; (vi) A consultation report and the full text of all consultation responses; (vii) An equalities analysis assessment. 45. The defendant carried out a consultation in accordance with its duty under section 72 of the 2014 Act. The police were neutral. The NHS and BPAS were strongly supportive of the imposition of a PSPO. Members of the represented groups made submissions in accordance with their respective allegiances. 46. The results of the consultation are set out in detail in the Murphy report. Direct representations were received in the form of emails and letters. Of the 78 letters, 65 were supportive of the PSPO and 13 were against. Of the 46 emails, 12 supported the PSPO and 34 objected. In addition, a further 1,430 responses were received through the pro-life campaign group "Be Here for Me". Caution must, however, be exercised with respect to this and, indeed, other aspects of the consultation to varying degrees. Inevitably, the views expressed in many cases were likely to have been determined entirely, or almost entirely, with reference to the moral position of those responding on the issue of abortion rather than the broader aspects of the impact of the activities of the protestors. By way of example only, the "Be Here for Me" responses were drawn from all corners of England, Scotland and Wales some of which were hundreds of miles from the Centre. 47. There was an online survey which generated 2,181 responses. Nearly two thirds of these came from people who identified themselves to be users of services, shops or facilities in the proposed safe zone. 16.4% lived in the vicinity and 7.4% were users of the services of the Centre. 48. The vast majority of those who responded confirmed that they had seen activists outside the Centre displaying material relating to abortion and approaching people using the clinic. Of course, none of this is surprising because the claimants have never sought to deny that this is what they were doing. However, 470 respondents gave narrative examples of what they had witnessed. These included: (i) The display of lifelike foetus dolls; (ii) Threats that users of the Centre would go to Hell; (iii) Referring to users of the Centre as "Mum". (iv) The handing out of rosary beads to users and passers-by; (v) Pursuing users of the Centre with leaflets; (vi) Not leaving users with enough room to pass into the Centre; (vii) The playing of loud music and chanting from prochoice activists; (viii) The taking of photographs of persons using the clinic; (ix) Young children passing by exposed to images of foetuses. 49. On the issue of the detrimental impact on their quality of life, the results of the online survey were striking. Between 85% and 90% of respondents supported the imposition of the proposed prohibitions in the safe zone. A clear majority said that their quality of life had been detrimentally affected either "extremely" or "very much". 50. Some examples of reports collected by the Centre were appended to its submissions, a flavour of which may be gained from the following: (i) Local resident – It is extremely stressful living opposite these protests. It is a regular occurrence seeing protestors standing in the way of clinic users grabbing their arms and shouting at them… Do I comfort the crying women on the street, or do they prefer privacy? Local residents should be able to live a peaceful life and should not have the weight of such things on their shoulders on a daily basis. (ii) Clinic/Unit Staff – Client very distressed because of protestors. Protestor holding pretend baby and trying to give client leaflets. (iii) Passer-by - The pictures displayed by those opposing abortion are truly awful. I walk past my local clinic with my children and they have images of dead foetuses on show. They create an awful environment for local residents.” (i) Outcomes of a "resident engagement exercise" from 2017; (ii) Evidence collected in the course of an investigation by officers comprising: thirteen formal witness statements; photographs of the activists outside the Centre and excerpts from the Centre's log of incidents; (iii) Evidence packs from GCN; (iv) Evidence packs and submissions from Marie Stopes, BPAS and Sister Supporter; (v) Minutes of officers' meetings with pro-life and prochoice supporters; (vi) A consultation report and the full text of all consultation responses; (vii) An equalities analysis assessment. (i) The display of lifelike foetus dolls; (ii) Threats that users of the Centre would go to Hell; (iii) Referring to users of the Centre as "Mum". (iv) The handing out of rosary beads to users and passers-by; (v) Pursuing users of the Centre with leaflets; (vi) Not leaving users with enough room to pass into the Centre; (vii) The playing of loud music and chanting from prochoice activists; (viii) The taking of photographs of persons using the clinic; (ix) Young children passing by exposed to images of foetuses. 49. On the issue of the detrimental impact on their quality of life, the results of the online survey were striking. Between 85% and 90% of respondents supported the imposition of the proposed prohibitions in the safe zone. A clear majority said that their quality of life had been detrimentally affected either "extremely" or "very much". 50. Some examples of reports collected by the Centre were appended to its submissions, a flavour of which may be gained from the following: (i) Local resident – It is extremely stressful living opposite these protests. It is a regular occurrence seeing protestors standing in the way of clinic users grabbing their arms and shouting at them… Do I comfort the crying women on the street, or do they prefer privacy? Local residents should be able to live a peaceful life and should not have the weight of such things on their shoulders on a daily basis. (ii) Clinic/Unit Staff – Client very distressed because of protestors. Protestor holding pretend baby and trying to give client leaflets. (iii) Passer-by - The pictures displayed by those opposing abortion are truly awful. I walk past my local clinic with my children and they have images of dead foetuses on show. They create an awful environment for local residents.”
“(i) Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling, (ii) Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a service user or member of staff, (iii) Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a service user or member of staff, (iv) Recording or photographing a service user or member of staff of the Clinic whilst they are in the Safe Zone, (v) Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy, or (vi) Playing or using amplified music, voice or audio recordings.”
“54. … there was a considerable tranche of evidence and information before the defendant of activities which many would reasonably consider to be fully capable of a having a detrimental effect on the quality of life [of those] who were exposed to them whatever the choice of adjective used to describe them. 55. Taking the evidence as a whole, I find that the defendant had reasonable grounds to be satisfied that the conditions in sub-section 59(2) and 59(3) (a) of the 2014 Act were met. …”
“212. The Court notes that the notion of “private life” within the meaning ofArticle 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which encompasses, inter alia, the right to personal autonomy and personal development (see Pretty, cited above, § 61). It concerns subjects such as gender identification, sexual orientation and sexual life (see, for example, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom,22 October 1981 , § 41, Series A no. 45, and Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom,19 February 1997 , § 36, Reports 1997-I), a person’s physical and psychological integrity (see the judgment in Tysiąc, cited above, § 107) as well as decisions both to have and not to have a child or to become genetic parents (see Evans, cited above, § 71).” … “214. While Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion, the Court finds that the prohibition in Ireland of abortion where sought for reasons of health and/or well-being about which the first and second applicants complained, and the third applicant’s alleged inability to establish her eligibility for a lawful abortion in Ireland, come within the scope of their right to respect for their private lives and accordingly Article 8.”
“For many women, becoming pregnant is an expression of their autonomy, the fulfilment of a deep-felt desire. But for those women who become pregnant, or who are obliged to carry a pregnancy to term, against their will there can be few greater invasions of their autonomy and bodily integrity.”
“111. The Court is of the view that effective access to reliable information on the conditions for the availability of lawful abortion, and the relevant procedures to be followed, is directly relevant for the exercise of personal autonomy. It reiterates that the notion of private life within the meaning of Article 8 applies both to decisions to become and not to become a parent (Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007 I; R.R. v. Poland, cited above, § 180). The nature of the issues involved in a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy or not is such that the time factor is of critical importance.”
“In the circumstances of this case, I do not doubt that there has been a significant interference with the rights of activists under Article 9, 10 and 11. I do not underestimate the seriousness of taking steps which are bound to conflict with that special degree of protection afforded to expressions of opinion which are made in the course of a debate on matters of public interest. Nevertheless I am satisfied that the defendant was entitled to conclude on the entirety of the evidence and information available to it that the making of this PSPO was a necessary step in a democratic society. There was substantial evidence that a very considerable number of users of the clinic reasonably felt that their privacy was being very seriously invaded at a time and place when they were most vulnerable and sensitive to uninvited attention. It also follows that, in this regard, I am also satisfied that the defendant was entitled to conclude that the effect of the activities of the protestors was likely to make such activities unreasonable and justified the restrictions imposed in satisfaction of the requirements of section 59(3) (b) and (c) of the 2014 Act.”
“It requires the court to seek first whether the action pursues a legitimate aim (i.e. one of the designated reasons to depart from a Convention right, such as national security). It then asks whether the measure employed is capable of achieving that aim, namely, whether there is a “rational connection” between the measures and the aim. Thirdly it asks whether a less restrictive alternative could have been employed. Even if these three hurdles are achieved, however…there is a fourth step which the decision-maker has to climb, namely, to demonstrate that the measure must be “necessary” which requires the courts to insist that the measure genuinely addresses a “pressing social need”, and is not just desirable or reasonable, by the standards of a democratic society.”
“… the applicant’s campaign contributed to a highly controversial debate of public interest. There can be no doubt as to the acute sensitivity of the moral and ethical issues raised by the question of abortion or as to the importance of the public interest at stake.”
“88. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s selffulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”