“…the applicants have shown that their claim is sufficiently arguable to justify the grant of permission. It is plainly arguable that the duty to protect freedom of speech means that it is not enough to act on a threat of violent protest unless it is significant and unavoidable and that therefore the court must scrutinise for itself whether the reaction to the threat was justified in light of all the circumstances. Accordingly, I grant permission and direct that the application is heard in the administrative court in order that any further evidence can be filed.”
“Freedom of expression Article 10 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Freedom of assembly and association Article 11 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
“1 (a) A designated activity is defined as any meeting, event or other activity due to take place on University premises where there is a reasonable expectation on the part of the Principal Organiser … or the Responsible Officer … that freedom of speech within the law may be compromised unless appropriate remedial action is taken. Whilst it is not possible to be prescriptive about such activities they may include visits by public figures especially where their views have aroused controversy in the past or where the subject matter of the activity is likely to be regarded as controversial or objectionable by at least some of the participants. In cases of doubt the Responsible Officer should always be consulted. … 2.3 The Council of the University has authorised the Responsible Officer, at his/her sole discretion but taking account of such advice as he/she deems necessary, to declare any activity to be a ‘designated activity’ within the meaning of this Code. … The Responsible Officer shall have authority to withdraw permission for the holding of a designated activity if in his/her opinion such changes in circumstances have occurred since the original granting of permission as to make it likely that good order cannot be maintained. Such action shall only be taken in exceptional circumstances and wherever possible after consultation with the Principal Organiser. 2.5 Where an activity is designated the Principal Organiser shall consider what measures, if any, might need to be taken in order to safeguard freedom of speech and advise the Responsible Officer as appropriate. The Responsible Officer may, at his/her sole discretion, vary the measures proposed by the Principal Organiser or require additional measures to be taken. … 7.1 Appeals against any rulings or requirements of the Responsible Officer or his/her nominee may be made by the Principal Organiser or his/her nominee to the Vice-Chancellor whose decision shall be final. In the absence of the Vice-Chancellor and in cases of urgency appeals may be determined by the Provost or, in his/her absence, by a Pro Vice-Chancellor.”
“This conference seeks to analyse the challenge posed to international law by the Jewish State of Israel and the whole of historic Palestine – the area to the west side of River Jordan that includes what is now the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967.”
“…to open up and serve as a platform for scholarly debates rather than positing an activist aim of adopting a firm normative position.”
“Intelligence has been received of at least two opposing protests being planned for at least Sunday19 April 2015 . The size and scope of these protests is not clear, but could be substantial. There are also student societies in the University with a history of assertive protest on these issues. The adverse publicity and complaints re this conference are growing in scale and stridency.”
“Further intelligence received indicating 300-400 protestors expected, and also opposing protests, for at least Sunday 19 April, and possibly targeting other locations in addition to the venue. It appears that these protests may attract an element of agitators. Adverse publicity in both mainstream and social media is further intensifying. However, there is no evidence of direct explicit threat of violence. That said, the Police threat assessment has escalated such that 63-84 officers will be on site for 300-400 protestors, and possibly more, with other in-venue requirements added.”
“Added17 March 2015 : … More intensive policing reduces likelihood of hazard event to Possible, but reasonably foreseeable worst case consequence is now Major because of anticipated size of protest and increasing indications of agitation. Possible x Major. Residual risk remains High.”
“The event is a private event held within Southampton University and it will be the responsibility of the university to consider how they will manage potential protesters gaining entry to the conference by ticket and how they will deal with this issue. They will always need to consider how they mitigate against the potential for terrorist attack.” (Introduction) “This is a private event which is on private property (Southampton University) which has a security department of its own. … It could be that the event is disrupted by persons inside who have paid to attend. It would be expected that the security team would have a plan for dealing with such matters. A warning method for conduct and an ejection policy will be developed. Police would only be expected to deal with matters of aggravated trespass, prevent a breach of the peace or investigate / prevent criminal matters. … It is not expected that police will have any uniformed presence within any buildings. … Security of the site is the responsibility of the university, plan for protests and who to deal with persons on their premises.” (Public Order Public Safety Assessment) “One of the biggest threats will be the University’s capacity and experience to deal with protests or activity within the conference. It is a University event for which they must take responsibility for planning and delivering safe outcomes. The university only has a small security team and it would be expected that additional skilled resources are available to manage the event. … The provision of protest areas and clear stewarding will be the responsibility of the university as event organiser. … Hampshire Constabulary will offer all support and guidance required to assist with the delivery of a safe event. There is already a close liaison between parties and clear exchange of information and as appropriate intelligence. Discussions on requesting Special Policing Services have not commenced. … Within Universities generally there has been a call for “Cops off Campus”
“The threat from this group of disorder is low if there is no counter demonstration or numbers are few. If extreme Left Wing groups attend then it would be necessary for either security to provide a presence or if there is an increase in hostility from the groups for police to attend therefore threat of disorder is medium. At this stage there has been no notification of extreme Left Wing groups attending this event, though again their attendance is considered probable. There is the possibility of splinter groups from the right wing also attending. …They will seek confrontation with left wing groups.”
“Should the profile of this event rise and an announcement of the Right Wing demonstrating at the site then the attendance of more extreme Left Wing could be considerably higher.”
“Given the above assessment, it is likely that this event will lead to the attendance of groups with opposing views and in turn the potential for disorder. Hampshire Constabulary remains confident it can provide the necessary support to Southampton University, if requested, to assist with the mitigation of risk from any protest. This may result from the event itself or as a consequence of cancellation.”
“…it is very clear from the Police’s report that they are more than capable of policing the conference and ensuring the safety of university staff, speakers, delegates, students and property. This should be accepted at face value”
“With this in mind, I mentioned to you yesterday that the University is prepared to commission an independent report to establish how a conference of this nature could be held in future; exploring and identifying how the balance between upholding freedom of speech and securing the safety and security of staff and students can be achieved, and the measures needed to achieve this. In our meeting you rejected this offer, but I make it again as a confirmation of the University’s continuing commitment to uphold freedom of speech within the law.”
“We believe that case law shows that but for extreme cases of imminent terrorist attacks the University is under a positive obligation to provide security in order to allow freedom of speech to take place. This means that an argument based on security cannot be used to cancel an event as the University intends to do in this case.”
“I reassured you that throughout this process, the only issues under consideration were how to balance the University’s duty to uphold freedom of speech within the law with its duty to ensure the safety of staff and students of the University on University premises and they are the only considerations that have weighed in the decision making process.”
“In short, however, my decision, based on the advice that I have received, is that it is not possible to put in place measures or take remedial action to ensure that good order can be maintained on campus that will safeguard staff and students while the conference is taking place. For that reason, and that reason alone, I uphold the decision of [Mr White] to withdraw permission to hold the conference at the University from 17th to 19th April, 2015. The University remains committed to taking such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for staff and students. I was impressed by the commitment you gave this morning to holding a conference reflecting a broad spectrum of views and I would like to confirm the offer that I made when we met that the University would be prepared to work with you to find a venue suitable for a conference of this nature at a later date. I remain committed to the possibility of the event taking place in the future if adequate safeguards can be put in place to minimise the risk of the safety of university staff and students. Given the short period of time between now and 17th April, the amount of publicity that the conference has attracted and the consequent risk of protest and counter-protest, I do not believe that such measures could be put in place for the present conference. … I realise that this will be a disappointment to you both and of no consolation to you that this is the most difficult decision that I have had to make in my whole time as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southampton.”
“It is your present allocation of projected income that makes the conference appear to be financially untenable in terms of meeting the University requirement to be self-funding. … By offering to underwrite the possible security costs of threat escalation beyond the current security plan attached, I trust this reassured you of the [Defendant’s] commitment to protect freedom of speech on our campus. …”
“[75] … As a general rule, where a serious threat of a violent counter-demonstration exists, the Court has allowed the domestic authorities a wide discretion in the choice of means to enable assemblies to take place without disturbance (see Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben”, loc. cit.). However, the mere existence of a risk is insufficient for banning the event: in making their assessment the authorities must produce concrete estimates of the potential scale of disturbance in order to evaluate the resources necessary for neutralising the threat of violent clashes (see Barankevich, cited above, § 33). [77] … if every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the sensitivity of the majority opinion (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, cited above, § 107).”
“[77] … In the present case, the Court cannot accept the Government's assertion that the threat was so great as to require such a drastic measure as banning the event altogether, let alone doing so repeatedly over a period of three years. Furthermore, it appears from the public statements made by the mayor of Moscow, as well as from the Government's observations, that if security risks played any role in the authorities' decision to impose the ban, they were in any event secondary to considerations of public morals. … [85] The Court is therefore unable to accept the Government's claim to a wide margin of appreciation in the present case. It reiterates that any decision restricting the exercise of freedom of assembly must be based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see, among other authorities, Christian Democratic People's Party, cited above, § 70). The only factor taken into account by the Moscow authorities was the public opposition to the event, and the officials' own views on morals.”
“…Thus, we conclude, that on a true construction of section 43 the duty imposed on the university by subsection (1) is local to the members of the university and its premises. Its duty is to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that those whom it may control, that is to say its members, students and employees, do not prevent the exercise of freedom of speech within the law by other members, students and employees and by visiting speakers, in places under its control. To require the university in the discharge of its duty under subsection (1) to take into consideration persons and places outside its control would be, in our view, to impose upon it an intolerable burden which Parliament cannot possibly have intended the university to bear. … Thus in discharging its duty under section 43(1) the university is not enjoined or entitled to take into account threats of "public disorder" outside the confines of the university by persons not within its control. Were it otherwise, the purpose of the section to ensure freedom of speech could be defeated since the university might feel obliged to cancel a meeting in Liverpool on the threat of public violence as far away as, for example, London which it could not possibly have any power to prevent. … Had they confined their reasons when refusing permission for the meetings to take place to the risk of disorder on university premises and among university members, it may be that no objection could have been taken to either of their decisions. Where, however, the threat was of public disorder without the university, then, unless the threat was posed by members of the university, the matter was, in our opinion, entirely for the police.”
“[68] … The weight to be given to the decision must depend on the type of decision involved, and the reasons for it. There is a spectrum of types of decision, ranging from those based on factors on which judges have the evidence, the experience, the knowledge, and the institutional legitimacy to be able to form their own view with confidence, to those based on factors in respect of which judges cannot claim any such competence, and where only exceptional circumstances would justify judicial interference, in the absence of errors of fact, misunderstandings, failure to take into account relevant material, taking into account irrelevant material or irrationality.”
“My conversations with the police left me with a clear understanding that there was a high risk of public disorder and the advice that I had received from the Director of Estates, and the Heads of Security and Safety and Occupational Health were that at this time, the University was not in a position to put in place the arrangements that would ensure that a safe outcome could be delivered.”
“As Responsible Officer, I was aware of the positive duty of the University to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the University as well as for visiting speakers but I was also very conscious of the duty to take such steps as are reasonably practical to safeguard students and staff on campus.”
“I can categorically state that the nature and scale of the correspondence and lobbying about whether the conference should proceed or not did not impact in any way on the decisions that I made.”
“Having reviewed the position, I did not consider, given the short period of time between the appeal and 17th April, the amount of publicity that the Conference had attracted and the consequent risk of protest and counter-protest, that suitable measures could be put in place for the Conference to take place now.”
“[20] … the question depends on an exacting analysis of the factual case advanced in defence of the measure, in order to determine (i) whether its objective is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right; (ii) whether it is rationally connected to the objective; (iii) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used; and (iv) whether, having regard to these matters and to the severity of the consequences, a fair balance has been struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community. These four requirements are logically separate, but in practice they inevitably overlap because the same facts are likely to be relevant to more than one of them.”