UK Supreme Court Backs Protesters And Rules Blocking Roads Can Be ‘Lawful’ Way To Demonstrate

The Supreme Court has ruled that protests can be a “lawful
excuse” to block roads, as the government pushes for new laws to
limit peaceful demonstrations.

Britain’s most senior judges said it was right to acquit a group
of protesters who blockaded the Defence and Security Equipment
International (DSEI) arms fair in London in 2017.

A ruling given on Friday morning said that protesters can have a
“lawful excuse” defence against the offence of obstructing a
highway, even where they have used “deliberately physically
obstructive conduct”.

“There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to
ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the
exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of
peaceful assembly,” the majority ruling added.

“There must be an assessment of the facts in each individual
case to determine whether the interference with article 10 or
article 11 rights was ‘necessary in a democratic society’.”

The offence has been used against hundreds of protesters in
recent years, and the trial of Extinction Rebellion activists who
blockaded a Rupert Murdoch-owned printworks had been adjourned
pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The case was sparked by the prosecution of four anti-arms trade
protesters who blocked a road leading to the ExCel Centre while it
hosted the DSEI arms fair in September 2017.

After hearing the defendants’ argument that the event involved
the “sale of potentially unlawful items designed for torture or
unlawful restraint, or the sale of weaponry to regimes that were
then using them against civilian populations”, district judge Angus
Hamilton found they had a “lawful excuse” for obstructing a highway
and acquitted them of all charges.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) appealed to the High Court,
which overturned the judge’s findings in January 2019, finding he
had erred in his assessment of proportionality and “took into
account certain considerations which were irrelevant”.

The protesters appealed to the Supreme Court, which said the
original judge had not made an error and restored the dismissal of
the charges.

The ruling said that the DSEI protest had not provoked disorder
or seen clashes with police, and had taken place “on an approach
road in a commercial area where there was already a sizeable police
presence”.

Judges said that when interfering with the right to protest,
factors must be considered including the extent to which
demonstrators have broken the law, their location, the duration of
the protest, its interference with the rights of others and whether
the action is over “very important issues”.

Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said the judgment
had set a “vital precedent” but should not have been needed.

“There should never have been a four-year long legal process
with all of the time it has taken and the stress that it will have
brought,” he added.

“It was yet another case of totally inappropriate policing and
overreach against protesters.

“It is an important verdict, especially now, when the government
is trying to crackdown even further on the right to protest. If the
current proposals become law, they will give even more powers to
the police, while making it even harder for people to make their
voices heard.”

Lawyer Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge Jones and Allen who
represented the appellants, said the judgment would have a
“significant effect” on future cases.

He said it meant there could be “many more arguments to pursue”
on behalf of prosecuted protesters, adding: “Even if the protest
caused deliberate obstruction, it does not automatically mean the
police are right to arrest. There has to be proper evaluation of
all the circumstances.”

A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said: “This judgment
shows how far out of step the government is with its attempt to
further criminalise peaceful protest through the new policing
bill.

“Such protest, which aims to draw attention to climate and
ecological villains including those in our own government, is
absolutely the right thing to do, not just morally but in law.”

The ruling came as opposition mounts to controversial protest
laws contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts
Bill.

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said earlier this
week that proposals to allow police to restrict protests on the
basis of noise were “not necessary in a democratic society” and
must be scrapped.

The law would also give the home secretary the power to define
“serious disruption”, allow police to ban one-person protests and
increase prison sentences for non-violent crimes related to
demonstrations.

It has sparked a wave of demonstrations, including some that
resulted in vandalism and violence against police officers, amid
accusations that the government was stifling the right to
protest.

In March, a report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary that was
commissioned by Priti Patel found police had been “tipping the
balance too readily in favour of protesters”, and against disrupted
businesses and members of the public.

The Supreme Court has ruled that protests can be a “lawful
excuse” to block roads, as the government pushes for new laws to
limit peaceful demonstrations.

Britain’s most senior judges said it was right to acquit a group
of protesters who blockaded the Defence and Security Equipment
International (DSEI) arms fair in London in 2017.

A ruling given on Friday morning said that protesters can have a
“lawful excuse” defence against the offence of obstructing a
highway, even where they have used “deliberately physically
obstructive conduct”.

“There should be a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to
ordinary life, including disruption of traffic, caused by the
exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of
peaceful assembly,” the majority ruling added.

“There must be an assessment of the facts in each individual
case to determine whether the interference with article 10 or
article 11 rights was ‘necessary in a democratic society’.”

The offence has been used against hundreds of protesters in
recent years, and the trial of Extinction Rebellion activists who
blockaded a Rupert Murdoch-owned printworks had been adjourned
pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The case was sparked by the prosecution of four anti-arms trade
protesters who blocked a road leading to the ExCel Centre while it
hosted the DSEI arms fair in September 2017.

After hearing the defendants’ argument that the event involved
the “sale of potentially unlawful items designed for torture or
unlawful restraint, or the sale of weaponry to regimes that were
then using them against civilian populations”, district judge Angus
Hamilton found they had a “lawful excuse” for obstructing a highway
and acquitted them of all charges.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) appealed to the High Court,
which overturned the judge’s findings in January 2019, finding he
had erred in his assessment of proportionality and “took into
account certain considerations which were irrelevant”.

The protesters appealed to the Supreme Court, which said the
original judge had not made an error and restored the dismissal of
the charges.

The ruling said that the DSEI protest had not provoked disorder
or seen clashes with police, and had taken place “on an approach
road in a commercial area where there was already a sizeable police
presence”.

Judges said that when interfering with the right to protest,
factors must be considered including the extent to which
demonstrators have broken the law, their location, the duration of
the protest, its interference with the rights of others and whether
the action is over “very important issues”.

Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said the judgment
had set a “vital precedent” but should not have been needed.

“There should never have been a four-year long legal process
with all of the time it has taken and the stress that it will have
brought,” he added.

“It was yet another case of totally inappropriate policing and
overreach against protesters.

“It is an important verdict, especially now, when the government
is trying to crackdown even further on the right to protest. If the
current proposals become law, they will give even more powers to
the police, while making it even harder for people to make their
voices heard.”

Lawyer Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge Jones and Allen who
represented the appellants, said the judgment would have a
“significant effect” on future cases.

He said it meant there could be “many more arguments to pursue”
on behalf of prosecuted protesters, adding: “Even if the protest
caused deliberate obstruction, it does not automatically mean the
police are right to arrest. There has to be proper evaluation of
all the circumstances.”

A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said: “This judgment
shows how far out of step the government is with its attempt to
further criminalise peaceful protest through the new policing
bill.

“Such protest, which aims to draw attention to climate and
ecological villains including those in our own government, is
absolutely the right thing to do, not just morally but in law.”

The ruling came as opposition mounts to controversial protest
laws contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts
Bill.

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said earlier this
week that proposals to allow police to restrict protests on the
basis of noise were “not necessary in a democratic society” and
must be scrapped.

The law would also give the home secretary the power to define
“serious disruption”, allow police to ban one-person protests and
increase prison sentences for non-violent crimes related to
demonstrations.

It has sparked a wave of demonstrations, including some that
resulted in vandalism and violence against police officers, amid
accusations that the government was stifling the right to
protest.

In March, a report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary that was
commissioned by Priti Patel found police had been “tipping the
balance too readily in favour of protesters”, and against disrupted
businesses and members of the public.