“University of Birmingham Encampment Coalition for Palestine has launched! As the situation in Gaza escalates, so too does the global student movement towards establishing lasting peace and liberating Palestine BREAKING - UoB Students Establish Liberated Zone OUR DEMANDS DISCLOSE all of the University's investments by OPENING THE BOOKS to ensure transparency. DIVEST immediately from all companies complicit in the Israeli occupation, apartheid, and genocide of Palestinians. TERMINATE all investments, research partnerships and promotion of arms manufacturers. BOYCOTT all Israeli universities by ending research collaboration and study abroad programs. PLEDGE to contribute to the reconstruction of universities and educational infrastructure in Gaza. PROTECT students and staff's right to protest on campus and freedom of speech to express solidarity with Palestine.”
“If you decide to accept this offer, a contract will be formed between you and the University. Your rights and obligations to the University and the University’s obligations to you arising under that contract are set out in the documents listed below, which form the terms and conditions of your student contract…The University’s Royal Charter, Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Codes of Practice – these are regularly reviewed, with any changes normally taking effect at the start of the new academic year.” … “Conduct and attendance You must be aware of the University’s Regulations and Codes of Practice relating to conduct, academic integrity and plagiarism, attendance and reasonable diligence (see: https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/legislation/index.aspx). The University can impose penalties if you do not follow these requirements, and in serious cases the University can suspend or expel you from the University.” … “When you may be asked to leave the University You may be asked to leave the University if: … You are expelled from the University for … breach of the conduct, Fitness to Practise, attendance or reasonable diligence requirements;”
“6. Acts of public authorities. (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if— (a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or (b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions. (3) In this section “public authority” includes— (a) a court or tribunal, and (b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.” “8 Judicial remedies. (1) In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.”
“Article 10 Freedom of expression 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. Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association 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. General principles 39. The Court recalls the key importance of freedom of expression as one of the preconditions for a functioning democracy. Genuine, effective exercise of this freedom does not depend merely on the State's duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, 29 where the Turkish Government were found to be under a positive obligation to take investigative and protective measures where the “pro-PKK” newspaper and its journalists and staff had been victim to a campaign of violence and intimidation; also Fuentes Bobo v Spain , 30 concerning the obligation on the State to protect freedom of expression in the employment context. 40. In determining whether or not a positive obligation exists, regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the general interest of the community and the interests of the individual, the search for which is inherent throughout the Convention. The scope of this obligation will inevitably vary, having regard to the diversity of situations obtaining in Contracting States and the choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources. Nor must such an obligation be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities.” … “43. The Court recalls that the applicants wished to draw attention of fellow citizens to their opposition to the plans of their locally elected representatives to develop playing fields and to deprive their children of green areas to play in. This was a topic of public interest and contributed to debate about the exercise of local government powers. However, while freedom of expression is an important right, it is not unlimited. Nor is it the only Convention right at stake. Regard must also be had to the property rights of the owner of the shopping centre under Art.1 of Protocol No.1 .” … 47. That provision [Article 10], notwithstanding the acknowledged importance of freedom of expression, does not bestow any freedom of forum for the exercise of that right. While it is true that demographic, social, economic and technological developments are changing the ways in which people move around and come into contact with each other, the Court is not persuaded that this requires the automatic creation of rights of entry to private property, or even, necessarily, to all publicly owned property (Government offices and ministries, for instance).Where however the bar on access to property has the effect of preventing any effective exercise of freedom of expression or it can be said that the essence of the right has been destroyed, the Court would not exclude that a positive obligation could arise for the State to protect the enjoyment of Convention rights by regulating property rights. The corporate town, where the entire municipality was controlled by a private body, might be an example. 48. In the present case, the restriction on the applicants' ability to communicate their views was limited to the entrance areas and passageways of the Galleries. It did not prevent them from obtaining individual permission from businesses within the Galleries (the manager of a hypermarket granted permission for a stand within his store on one occasion) or from distributing their leaflets on the public access paths into the area. It also remained open to them to campaign in the old town centre and to employ alternative means, such as calling door to door or seeking exposure in the local press, radio and television. The applicants do not deny that these other methods were available to them. Their argument, essentially, is that the easiest and most effective method of reaching people was in using the Galleries, as shown by the local authority's own information campaign. The Court does not consider however that the applicants can claim that they were, as a result of the refusal of the private company, Postel, effectively prevented from communicating their views to their fellow citizens. Some 3,200 people submitted letters in their support. Whether more would have done so if the stand had remained in the Galleries is speculation which is insufficient to support an argument that the applicants were unable otherwise to exercise their freedom of expression in a meaningful manner. 49. Balancing therefore the rights in issue and having regard to the nature and scope of the restriction in this case, the Court does not find that the Government failed in any positive obligation to protect the applicants' freedom of expression.”
“…The central issue in the present appeal is whether that case was rightly decided. In my view it was not. 6. Most basically, an action for recovery of land presupposes that the Claimant is not in possession of the relevant land: the defendant is in possession without the Claimant’s permission. This remains the position even if, as the Court of Appeal held in Manchester Airport plc v Dutton[2000] QB 133 , the Claimant no longer needs to have an estate in the land. See Megarry & Wade, The Law of Real Property, 7th ed (2008), para 4-026. To use the old terminology, the defendant has ejected the Claimant from the land; the Claimant says that he has a better right to possess it, and he wants to recover possession. That is reflected in the form of the order which the court grants: “that the Claimant do forthwith recover” the land or, more fully, “that the said AB do recover against the said CD possession” of the land: see Cole, The Law and Practice in Ejectment (1857), p 786, Form 262.” … “8. The intention behind the relevant provisions of rule 55 remains the same as with Order 113: to provide a special fast procedure in cases which only involve trespassers and to allow the use of that procedure even when some or all of the trespassers cannot be identified.” … “10. Saville J referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in University of Essex v Djemal[1980] WLR 1301 , which I have just mentioned. That decision is clearly distinguishable, however. The defendant students, who had previously taken over, and been removed from, certain administrative offices of the University of Essex, had been occupying another part of the University buildings known as “Level 6”
“If it is violated by adverse occupation of any part of the premises, that violation affects the right of possession of the whole of the premises” … “15. Plainly, the idea of the Commission having to return to court time and again to obtain a fresh order for possession in respect of a series of new sites is unattractive. But the scenario presupposes that the defendants would, with impunity, disobey the injunction restraining them from entering the other parcels of land. So this point is linked to the contention that the injunction would not work. 16. I note in passing that there is actually no evidence that these defendants would fail to comply with the injunction in respect of the other parcels of land. So there is no particular reason to suppose that the Court of Appeal’s injunction will prove an ineffective remedy in this case.”
“5. Since the SOAS campus is private land, it follows, as a matter of basic English property law, that the only persons who may enter upon the campus are people who have the licence or consent of SOAS. For normal purposes, of course, the students who are enrolled at SOAS have the permission of SOAS to be on the campus for the purposes of their education in the broadest sense of that term.” “7. … the basic ground upon which the possession order is sought is the property rights of SOAS to have occupation of its own premises and to prevent unlawful trespass. SOAS says that the students who are conducting the sit-in are trespassers, because they have no right or licence to occupy the Brunei Suite to the exclusion of the school, and they most certainly have no right to sleep there or to control who has access to the premises.” “8. … the regulations for students at SOAS, which are exhibited to Mr Poulson’s witness statement and which provide in paragraph 9.1 under the heading “Student discipline”: “No student of the School shall engage in activity likely to interfere in the broadest sense with the proper functioning or activities of the School or those who work or study in the School or undertake action which otherwise damages the School.”
“24. …this paragraph appears to me to provide clear authority that Article 10 does not give any general freedom to exercise the relevant rights upon private land. The only exception which the court envisaged was where the prohibition on access might prevent any effective exercise at all of freedom of expression, or where it might be said that the underlying essence of the right had in some way been destroyed.” … “25. On the facts of the present case, it seems to me entirely fanciful to argue that preventing the students of SOAS from exercising their Article 10 rights in the Brunei Suite would in any way impinge upon the effective exercise of their right of freedom of expression. There are many other places and ways in which that right can be exercised, and as the events of the last few days have shown there are indeed many ways in which it has been exercised. The proposition that Article 10 requires the law to override the property rights of SOAS in its own buildings is, in my view, unarguable and offers no prospects of success at trial. 26. Similar considerations apply to Article 11 which the court went on to deal with in paragraphs 51 and 52 of its judgment, because the court found that “largely identical considerations arise under this provision”
“ 6. … At one stage in July of last year the High Court bailiffs were asked to help, but by the time they arrived the protest was effectively over and they did not, as they have confirmed in a recent email, then effect repossession of the site. In fact, the practical reality may be that they never will effect repossession of the entire site. They are only called in as and when there is a protest that the police or University authorities themselves are not able to deal with effectively. The activities of the protestors move around the site and their occupation of parts of the campus for protest does not usually embrace all, so that any disruption would be ended by simply clearing the building or part of the site in question. In July 2014 the Strathcona Building was affected, and the protestors had in fact left that building by the time the bailiffs arrived. Even had the bailiffs effected possession of the Strathcona Building, it may be that this would not have amounted to possession of the remainder of the site as indicated on the plan attached to the Possession Order. I do not think that matters, and do not need to decide the point.”