PRESS RELEASE
19 February 2004 for immediate release
Anti-war protesters win landmark ruling in Human Rights test case
Today the Divisional Court gave a landmark ruling that the police had unlawfully breached the human rights of an anti-war protestor, Jane Laporte, who was detained and prevented from attending a protest at RAF Fairford last March.
Ms Laporte was one of 120 protestors who was stopped, searched and asked to reboard three coaches headed for the air base in order to protest against the war on Iraq. Once abroad they were told that the Police believed a breach of the peace would occur at Fairford. The coach doors were then forcibly held shut and the protestors taken back to London under Police escort – a 2 ½ hour journey without a toilet break.
This, the Police argued, was justified because the 120 protestors were, in their view, “well armed” with two pairs of scissors, “five home made shields”, a cardboard tube and a yacht distress flare. No Act of Parliament was said to authorise what happened. Instead the Police relied on common law powers of the kind also deployed at Oxford Circus during the May Day protests of 2001. The judgement in Ms Laporte’s case is the first ever court ruling on the legality of such powers.
The Court firmly ruled Ms Laporte’s detention and forced return to London could not be justified, either under the common law or the Human Rights Act. Her right not to be arbitrarily detained (Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention - which the Act makes part of UK law) had been breached, as had those of the other protestors. Giving judgement Lord Justice May commented on Ms Laporte’s case in this way:
“for practical purposes none of the articles seized were to be regarded as offensive. Two pairs of scissors would not make much impression on the perimeter fencing of the air base.”
He added:
“the claimant’s enforced return on the coach to London was not lawful because (a) there was no immediately apprehended breach of the peace by her sufficient to justify even transitory detention, (b) detention on the coach for two and a half hours went far beyond anything which could conceivably constitute transitory detention such as I have described and (c) even if there had been, the circumstances and length of the detention on the coach were wholly disproportionate to the apprehended breach of the peace.”
John Halford is a solicitor at Bindman and Partners acting for Ms Laporte and many of the other protestors. He said today:
“The court ruling that there was unlawful and arbitrary detention is welcome and severely restricts the use of a draconian power which Parliament has never debated or sanctioned. This was not a case of ‘rounding up the usual suspects’: no crime had been committed. What the Police did was arbitrarily detain on the flimsiest of pretexts. The Court has laid down a firm marker that this must not happen in future.”
However, the Court went on to rule that the Police were acting lawfully in turning Ms Laporte and the other protestors away from the demonstration, a conclusion Mr Halford described as ‘inconsistent’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. He said:
“There remains unfinished business in this case, however. The ruling that it was lawful to turn the protestors back is not satisfactory and we will put our arguments on that point to the Court of Appeal. This case was about more than detention alone: we argued that the rights of freedom of speech and assembly were also breached. The Court disagreed. However, we simply cannot see how the Police were wrong to detain but right to turn the protestors back – the justification offered for both was exactly the same. Nor is the Court’s ruling is consistent what the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly said on this issue: that ‘blanket measures’ curtailing one individual’s freedom of speech because others at a lawful demonstration might break the law breach the Human Rights Convention. Freedom of speech is a foundation of democracy. It cannot be right for the Police to stifle protest, by preventing attendance at a demonstration, simply on the grounds that some who might attend might cause trouble. That would allow the Police to prevent any - and in fact every - demonstration taking place.”
Jane Laporte, the claimant, said:
“We will be celebrating the ruling that the police acted unlawfully in detaining us and breached out human rights. But the judgement should have gone further. Attending a demonstration is a basic freedom which everyone should enjoy if a society is to function as a democracy. We hoped that the Court would uphold this freedom and plan to put that point to the Court of Appeal."
_____
Notes for editors:-
- For more information about this press release contact John Halford Bindman and Partners 0207 833 4433 Jane Laporte (the claimant) can be contacted on 07817 483 167 and Jesse Schust (another passenger) on 0781 458 7361
- The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in October 2000. It requires the police and other public authorities to avoid breaching key European Convention Human Rights Articles save where legislation makes this impossible. Amongst the key rights are Article 5 (deprivation of liberty must be justified in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and on one of the five grounds listed in paragraph (1) of the Article), Article 10 (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly).
- Bindman & Partners was founded in 1974 by a small group of Solicitors specialising in civil liberties and the rights of the individual. These concerns have remained at the heart of the firm as it has grown to its present size of 13 Partners and 65 other staff and is widely regarded as one of the country’s leading civil rights practices. Further background information about the work of the firm can be obtained by calling 020 7833 4433, emailing or visiting our website at