“137. Penalty for wilful obstruction (1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
“So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.”
“(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. … (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.”
“(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly … (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. …”
“62. The way in which the two provisions can be read together harmoniously is that, in circumstances where there would be a breach of articles 10 or 11, such that an interference would be unlawful under section 6(1) of the HRA, a person will by definition have ‘lawful excuse’. Conversely, if on the facts there is or would be no violation of the Convention rights, the person will not have the relevant lawful excuse and will be guilty (subject to any other possible defences) of the offence in section 137(1). 63. That then calls for the usual enquiry which needs to be conducted under the HRA. It requires consideration of the following questions: (1) Is what the defendant did in exercise of one of the rights in articles 10 or 11? (2) If so, is there an interference by a public authority with that right? (3) If there is an interference, is it ‘prescribed by law’? (4) If so, is the interference in pursuit of a legitimate aim as set out in paragraph (2) of article 10 or article 11, for example the protection of the rights of others? (5) If so, is the interference ‘necessary in a democratic society’ to achieve that legitimate aim? 64. That last question will in turn require consideration of the well-known set of sub-questions which arise in order to assess whether an interference is proportionate: (1) Is the aim sufficiently important to justify interference with a fundamental right? (2) Is there a rational connection between the means chosen and the aim in view? (3) Are there less restrictive alternative means available to achieve that aim? (4) Is there a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the general interest of the community, including the rights of others? 65. In practice, in cases of this kind, we anticipate that it will be the last of those questions which will be of crucial importance: a fair balance must be struck between the different rights and interests at stake. This is inherently a fact-specific enquiry.”
“39. As the judge recognised, the answer to the question which he identified at the start of his judgment [the limits to the right of lawful assembly and protest on the highway] is inevitably fact sensitive, and will normally depend on a number of factors. In our view, those factors include (but are not limited to) the extent to which the continuation of the protest would breach domestic law, the importance of the precise location to the protesters, the duration of the protest, the degree to which the protesters occupy the land, and the extent of the actual interference the protest causes to the rights of others, including the property rights of the owners of the land, and the rights of any members of the public. 40. The defendants argue that the importance of the issues with which the Occupy Movement is concerned is also of considerable relevance. That raises a potentially controversial point, because as the judge said, at para 155: ‘it is not for the court to venture views of its own on the substance of the protest itself, or to gauge how effective it has been in bringing the protestors’ views to the fore. The Convention rights in play are neither strengthened nor weakened by a subjective response to the aims of the protest itself or by the level of support it seems to command … the court cannot - indeed, must not - attempt to adjudicate on the merits of the protest. To do that would go against the very spirit of articles 10 and 11 of the Convention … the right to protest is the right to protest right or wrong, misguidedly or obviously correctly, for morally dubious aims or for aims that are wholly virtuous.’ 41. Having said that, we accept that it can be appropriate to take into account the general character of the views whose expression the Convention is being invoked to protect. For instance, political and economic views are at the top end of the scale, and pornography and vapid tittle-tattle is towards the bottom. In this case the judge accepted that the topics of concern to the Occupy Movement were ‘of very great political importance’: para 155. In our view, that was something which could fairly be taken into account. However, it cannot be a factor which trumps all others, and indeed it is unlikely to be a particularly weighty factor: otherwise judges would find themselves according greater protection to views which they think important, or with which they agree. As the Strasbourg court said in Kuznetsov v Russia, para 45: ‘any measures interfering with the freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles - however shocking and unacceptable certain views or words used may appear to the authorities - do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it. In a democratic society based on the rule of law, the ideas which challenge the existing order must be afforded a proper opportunity of expression through the exercise of the right of assembly as well as by other lawful means …’ The judge took into account the fact that the defendants were expressing views on very important issues, views which many would see as being of considerable breadth, depth and relevance, and that the defendants strongly believed in the views they were expressing. Any further analysis of those views and issues would have been unhelpful, indeed inappropriate.”
“… whether the prosecution had proved that the demonstrations in these two particular cases were of a nature such that they lost the protections afforded by articles 10 and 11 and were consequently unreasonable obstructions of the highway.”
“a. The actions were entirely peaceful - they were the very epitome of a peaceful protests [sic]. b. The defendants’ actions did not give rise either directly or indirectly to any form of disorder c. The defendants’ behavior [sic] did not involve the commission of any criminal offence beyond the alleged offence of obstruction of the highway which was the very essence of the defendants’ protest. There was no disorder, no obstruction of or assault on police officers and no abuse offered. d. The defendants’ actions were carefully targeted and were aimed only at obstructing vehicles headed to the DSEI arms fair … I did hear some evidence that the road in question may have been used, at the time, by vehicles other than those heading to the arms fair, but that evidence was speculative and was not particularly clear or compelling. I did not find it necessary to make any finding of fact as to whether ‘non-DSEI traffic’ was or was not in fact obstructed since the authorities cited above appeared to envisage ‘reasonable’ obstructions causing some inconvenience to the ‘general public’ rather than only to the particular subject of a demonstration … e. The action clearly related to a ‘matter of general concern’ …namely the legitimacy of the arms fair and whether it involved the marketing and sale of potentially unlawful items (eg those designed for torture or unlawful restraint) or the sale of weaponry to regimes that were then using them against civilian populations. f. The action was limited in duration. I considered that it was arguable that the obstruction for which the defendants were responsible only occurred between the time of their arrival and the time of their arrests - which in both cases was a matter of minutes. I considered this since, at the point when they were arrested the defendants were no longer ‘free agents’ but were in the custody of their respective arresting officers and I thought that this may well have an impact on the issue of ‘wilfulness’ which is an essential element of this particular offence. The prosecution in both cases urged me to take the time of the obstruction as the time between arrival and the time when the police were able to move the defendants out of the road or from below the bridge. Ultimately, I did not find it necessary to make a clear determination on this point as even on the Crown’s interpretation the obstruction in Ziegler lasted about 90-100 minutes … g. I heard no evidence that anyone had actually submitted a complaint about the defendants’ action or the blocking of the road. The police’s response appears to have been entirely on their own initiative. h. Lastly, although compared to the other points this is a relatively minor issue, I note the longstanding commitment to opposing the arms trade that all four defendants demonstrated. For most of them this stemmed, at least in part, from their Christian faith. They had also all been involved in other entirely peaceful activities aimed at trying to halt the DSEI arms fair. This was not a group of people who randomly chose to attend this event hoping to cause trouble.”
“The question for the High Court therefore is whether I was correct to have dismissed the case against the defendants in these circumstances. The point of law for the decision of the High Court, is whether, as a matter of law, I was entitled to reach the conclusions I did in these particular cases.”
“91. That conclusion leaves open the standard which an appellate court should apply when determining whether the trial judge was entitled to reach his conclusion on proportionality, once the appellate court is satisfied that the conclusion was based on justifiable primary facts and assessments. In my view, an appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusion on proportionality in such a case, unless it decides that that conclusion was wrong. I do not agree with the view that the appellate court has to consider that judge’s conclusion was ‘plainly’ wrong on the issue of proportionality before it can be varied or reversed. As Lord Wilson says in para 44, either ‘plainly’ adds nothing, in which case it should be abandoned as it will cause confusion, or it means that an appellate court cannot vary or reverse a judge’s conclusion on proportionality of [sic] it considers it to have been ‘merely’ wrong. Whatever view the Strasbourg court may take of such a notion, I cannot accept it, as it appears to me to undermine the role of judges in the field of human rights. 92. I appreciate that the attachment of adverbs to ‘wrong’ was impliedly approved by Lord Fraser in the passage cited from G v G (Minors: Custody Appeal)[1985] 1 WLR 647 , 652, by Lord Wilson at para 38, and has something of a pedigree: see eg per Ward LJ in Assicurazioni[2003] 1 WLR 577 , para 195 (although aspects of his approach have been disapproved: see Datec[2007] 1 WLR 1325 , para 46). However, at least where Convention questions such as proportionality are being considered on an appeal, I consider that, if after reviewing the trial judge's decision, an appeal court considers that he was wrong, then the appeal should be allowed. Thus, a finding that he was wrong is a sufficient condition for allowing an appeal against the trial judge’s conclusion on proportionality, and, indeed, it is a necessary condition (save, conceivably, in very rare cases).”
“We can see no principled basis for confining the approach in In re B to family law cases or not applying it to the criminal context. This is because the issue of principle discussed by Lord Neuberger in that case related to the approach to be taken by an appellate court to the assessment by a lower court or tribunal of proportionality under the HRA. That is a general question of principle and does not arise only in a particular field of law.”
“At para 38(d) the district judge said that the defendants’ actions were carefully targeted and were aimed only at obstructing vehicles headed to the DSEI arms fair. However, the fact is that the ability of other members of the public to go about their lawful business, in particular by passing along the highway to and from the Excel Centre was completely obstructed. In our view, that is highly relevant in any assessment of proportionality. This is not a case where, as commonly occurs, some part of the highway (which of course includes the pavement, where pedestrians may walk) is temporarily obstructed by virtue of the fact that protestors are located there. That is a common feature of life in a modern democratic society. For example, courts are well used to such protests taking place on the highway outside their own precincts. However, there is a fundamental difference between that situation, where it may be said (depending on the facts) that a ‘fair balance’ is being struck between the different rights and interests at stake, and the present cases. In these two cases the highway was completely obstructed and some members of the public were completely prevented from doing what they had the lawful right to do, namely use the highway for passage to get to the Excel Centre and this occurred for a significant period of time.” (Emphasis added)
“… there was no “fair balance” struck in these cases between the rights of the individuals to protest and the general interest of the community, including the rights of other members of the public to pass along the highway. Rather the ability of other members of the public to go about their lawful business was completely prevented by the physical conduct of these defendants for a significant period of time. That did not strike a fair balance between the different rights and interests at stake.” (Emphasis added)
“… the real issue is whether the justices were entitled on the evidence and the facts they found to conclude that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for his failure. It seems to me that they were. In the light of the facts to which I have referred, their conclusion was not perverse. It was within the range of conclusions properly open to them.”
“Finally, I should note the now well established approach of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to section 78 cases, when invited to consider the trial judge’s exercise of judgment as to fairness, only to interfere with the judge’s ruling if it is Wednesbury irrational or perverse. In my view, this Court should adopt the very same approach on appeals to it by way of case stated on a point of law, for on such a point, anything falling short of Wednesbury irrationality will not do.”
“… On appeals by way of case stated on a point of law this court adopts the same approach as does the Court of Appeal to a trial judge’s exercise of judgment, interfering with the judge’s ruling only if it be Wednesbury irrational or perverse (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn[1948] 1 KB 223 ): H v Director of Public Prosecutions[2007] EWHC 2192 (Admin) . The ruling in this case was not Wednesbury irrational let alone perverse.”
“The test for this court on an appeal of this nature is whether the decision to which the district judge has come was open to her or not. This court should not interfere unless, on wellknown grounds, the appellants can establish that the decision to which the district judge has come is one she could not properly have reached.”
“(1) Any person who was a party to any proceeding before a magistrates’ court or is aggrieved by the conviction, order, determination or other proceeding of the court may question the proceeding on the ground that it is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction by applying to the justices composing the court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on the question of law or jurisdiction involved …” (Emphasis added)
“My Lords, in Edwards v Bairstow[1956] AC 14 , 36, Lord Radcliffe made it plain that the court should only interfere with the conclusion of special commissioners if it were shown either that they had erred in law or that they had reached a conclusion on the facts which they had found which no reasonable person, applying the relevant law, could have reached. My Lords, when it is shown on the face of a reasoned award that the appointed tribunal has applied the right legal test, the court should in my view only interfere if on the facts found as applied to that right legal test, no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion. It ought not to interfere merely because the court thinks that upon those facts and applying that test, it would not or might not itself have reached the same conclusion, for to do that would be for the court to usurp what is the sole function of the tribunal of fact.”
“It is said that this court is bound by the findings of fact set out in the cases by the magistrates. It is true that this court does not sit as a general court of appeal against magistrates’ decisions in the same way as quarter sessions. In this court we only sit to review the magistrates’ decisions on points of law, being bound by the facts which they have found, provided always that there is evidence on which they could come to the conclusions of fact at which they have arrived … if magistrates come to a decision to which no reasonable bench of magistrates, applying their minds to proper considerations, and giving themselves proper directions, could come, then this court can interfere, because the position is exactly the same as if the magistrates had come to a decision of fact without evidence to support it.”
“… It is obviously perverse and an error of law to make a finding of fact for which there is no evidential foundation. It is also perverse to say that black is white, which is essentially what the justices did in Bracegirdle v Oxley and Cobley. But it is not perverse, even if it may be mistaken, to prefer the evidence of A to that of B where they are in conflict. That gives rise, in the absence of special and unusual circumstances (absent here), to no error of law challengeable by case stated in the High Court. It gives rise to an error of fact properly to be pursued in the Crown Court.”
“I do not consider that it was open to the Crown Court to find that ‘those seeking to retake the escaped patient’ and in particular the constables concerned, were pursuing her, because there was in my view no material in the facts found on which (taking a proper view of the law) they could properly reach that conclusion.”
“If, after reviewing the judge’s judgment and any relevant evidence, the appellate court considers that the judge approached the question of proportionality correctly as a matter of law and reached a decision which he was entitled to reach, then the appellate court will not interfere. If, on the other hand, after such a review, the appellate court considers that the judge made a significant error of principle in reaching his conclusion or reached a conclusion he should not have reached, then, and only then, will the appellate court reconsider the issue for itself if it can properly do so (as remitting the issue results in expense and delay, and is often pointless).”
“In conclusion, the references cited above show clearly in my view that to limit intervention to a ‘significant error of principle’ is too narrow an approach, at least if it is taken as implying that the appellate court has to point to a specific principle - whether of law, policy or practice - which has been infringed by the judgment of the court below. The decision may be wrong, not because of some specific error of principle in that narrow sense, but because of an identifiable flaw in the judge's reasoning, such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take account of some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion. However, it is equally clear that, for the decision to be ‘wrong’ underCPR rule 52.11 (3), it is not enough that the appellate court might have arrived at a different evaluation. As Elias LJ said in R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] PTSR, para 34: ‘the appeal court does not second guess the first instance judge. It does not carry out the balancing task afresh as though it were rehearing the case but must adopt a traditional function of review, asking whether the decision of the judge below was wrong …’”
“It is not enough simply to demonstrate an error or flaw in reasoning. It must be such as to undermine the cogency of the conclusion. Accordingly, if there is no such error or flaw, the appeal court should not make its own assessment of proportionality.”
“The court reiterates in this respect that any large-scale gathering in a public place inevitably creates inconvenience for the population. Although a demonstration in a public place may cause some disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed byarticle 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of its substance (see [Galstyan v Armenia (No 26986/03) at paras 116-117, and Bukta v Hungary, (No 25691/04); ECHR 2007-III at para 37]). The appropriate ‘degree of tolerance’ cannot be defined in abstracto: the Court must look at the particular circumstances of the case and particularly to the extent of the ‘disruption of ordinary life’.”
“[the] notion [of peaceful assembly] does not cover a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions. The guarantees of article 11 therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society.”
“… the organisers’ autonomy in determining the assembly’s location, time and manner of conduct, such as, for example, whether it is static or moving or whether its message is expressed by way of speeches, slogans, banners or by other ways, are important aspects of freedom of assembly. Thus, the purpose of an assembly is often linked to a certain location and/or time, to allow it to take place within sight and sound of its target object and at a time when the message may have the strongest impact.” (Emphasis added)
“that the action clearly related to a matter of general concern, namely the legitimacy of the arms fair and whether it involved the marketing and sale of potentially unlawful items. That was relevant in so far as it emphasised that the subject matter of the protests in the present cases was a matter of legitimate public interest. As Mr Blaxland submitted before us, the content of the expression in this case was political and therefore falls at the end of the spectrum at which greatest weight is attached to the kind of expression involved.”
“On any view, as was common ground, the duration of the obstruction of the highway was not de minimis. Accordingly, the fact is that there was a complete obstruction of the highway for a not insignificant amount of time. That is highly significant, in our view, to the proper evaluative assessment which is required when applying the principle of proportionality.” (Emphasis added)
“(1) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale].”
“The Human Rights Act 1998 , giving domestic effect to articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention, represented what Sedley LJ in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 163 JP 789, 795, aptly called a ‘constitutional shift’.”
“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.”
“137. The Court has previously held that the exceptions to the right to freedom of assembly must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established (see Kudrevičius, para 142). In an ambiguous situation, such as the three examples at hand, it was all the more important to adopt measures based on the degree of disturbance caused by the impugned conduct and not on formal grounds, such as non-compliance with the notification procedure. An interference with freedom of assembly in the form of the disruption, dispersal or arrest of participants in a given event may only be justifiable on specific and averred substantive grounds, such as serious risks referred to in paragraph 1 of section 16 of the Public Events Act. This was not the case in the episodes at hand.”
“64. In conclusion, the references cited above show clearly in my view that to limit intervention to a ‘significant error of principle’ is too narrow an approach, at least if it is taken as implying that the appellate court has to point to a specific principle - whether of law, policy or practice - which has been infringed by the judgment of the court below. The decision may be wrong, not because of some specific error of principle in that narrow sense, but because of an identifiable flaw in the judge’s reasoning, such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take account of some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion. However, it is equally clear that, for the decision to be ‘wrong’ underCPR 52.11 (3), it is not enough that the appellate court might have arrived at a different evaluation. As Elias LJ said (R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2016] EWCA Civ 47 ;[2016] PTSR 1344 , para 34): ‘… the appeal court does not second guess the first instance judge. It does not carry out the balancing task afresh as though it were rehearing the case but must adopt a traditional function of review, asking whether the decision of the judge below was wrong’.”
“All eight defendants described their action as ‘carefully targeted’ and aimed at disrupting traffic headed for the DSEI arms fair. Most but not all of the defendants accepted that their actions may have caused disruption to traffic that was not headed to the DSEI arms fair. Conversely it was not in dispute that not all access routes to the DSEI arms fair were blocked by the defendants’ actions and it would have been possible for a vehicle headed to the DSEI arms fair but blocked by the actions to have turned around and followed an alternative route.” (Emphasis added)
“The action was limited in duration. I considered that it was arguable that the obstruction for which the defendants were responsible only occurred between the time of their arrival and the time of their arrests - which in both cases was a matter of minutes. I considered this since, at the point when they were arrested the defendants were no longer ‘free agents’ but were in the custody of their respective arresting officers and I thought that this may well have an impact on the issue of ‘wilfulness’ which is an essential element of this particular offence. The prosecution urged me to take the time of the obstruction as the time between arrival and the time when the police were able to move the defendants out of the road or from the bridge. Ultimately, I did not find it necessary to make a clear determination on this point as even on the Crown’s interpretation the obstruction in Ziegler lasted about 90-100 minutes.”
“Finally, as a general principle, the court reiterates that any demonstration in a public place inevitably causes a certain level of disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, and that it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed byarticle 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance.”
“The European Court does not approach questions of proportionality as questions of pure fact: see, for example, Smith and Grady v United Kingdom … Nor should domestic courts do so. The greater intensity of review now required in determining questions of proportionality, and the duty of the courts to protect Convention rights, would in my view be emasculated if a judgment at first instance on such a question were conclusively to preclude any further review [ie by an appellate court].”
“If the case [as stated] contains anything ex facie which is bad law and which bears upon the determination, it is, obviously, erroneous in point of law. But, without any such misconception appearing ex facie, it may be that the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal. In those circumstances, too, the court must intervene. It has no option but to assume that there has been some misconception of the law and that, this has been responsible for the determination. So there, too, there has been error in point of law. I do not think that it much matters whether this state of affairs is described as one in which there is no evidence to support the determination or as one in which the evidence is inconsistent with and contradictory of the determination, or as one in which the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts the determination. Rightly understood, each phrase propounds the same test. For my part, I prefer the last of the three, since I think that it is rather misleading to speak of there being no evidence to support a conclusion when in cases such as these many of the facts are likely to be neutral in themselves, and only to take their colour from the combination of circumstances in which they are found to occur.”
“… to limit intervention to a ‘significant error of principle’ is too narrow an approach, at least if it is taken as implying that the appellate court has to point to a specific principle - whether of law, policy or practice - which has been infringed by the judgment of the court below. The decision may be wrong, not because of some specific error of principle in that narrow sense, but because of an identifiable flaw in the judge’s reasoning, such as a gap in logic, a lack of consistency, or a failure to take account of some material factor, which undermines the cogency of the conclusion. However, it is equally clear that, for the decision to be ‘wrong’ underCPR 52.11 (3), it is not enough that the appellate court might have arrived at a different evaluation. As Elias LJ said (R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2016] EWCA Civ 47 ;[2016] PTSR 1344 , para 34): ‘… the appeal court does not second guess the first instance judge. It does not carry out the balancing task afresh as though it were rehearing the case but must adopt a traditional function of review, asking whether the decision of the judge below was wrong.’”
“The Court’s task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the Court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was ‘proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued’ and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are ‘relevant and sufficient’. In so doing, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in article 10 and, moreover, that they based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts.”
“In our view, that analysis displays an erroneous approach. The reason why the obstruction did not last longer was precisely because the police intervened to make arrests and to remove the respondents from the site. If they were exercising lawful rights, they should not have been arrested or removed. They might well have remained at the site for much longer. On any view, as was common ground, the duration of the obstruction of the highway was not de minimis. Accordingly, the fact is that there was a complete obstruction of the highway for a not insignificant amount of time. That is highly significant, in our view, to the proper evaluative assessment which is required when applying the principle of proportionality.”
“The High Court shall hear and determine the question arising on the case … and shall - (a) reverse, affirm or amend the determination in respect of which the case has been stated; or (b) remit the matter to the magistrates’ court … with the opinion of the High Court, and may make such other order in relation to the matter (including as to costs) as it thinks fit.”
Showing the 50 most senior of 64.