Public Law Question on the Human Rights Act 1998 - Essay Example

PUBLIC LAW Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 2. Discussion of Case Study….……………………………………………………………………………...4 3. Human Rights and the Right to Protest in U.K………………………………………………… 4. Suggestions / Advice…………………………………………………………………………………..... 5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….. References………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1. Introduction “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…Power concedes nothing without a demand”1. The foundation of any democratic society lies in the legal framework that governs the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Public protests and campaigning for causes ranging from advocating and proposing changes in laws governing child safety to governmental laws on local health services and global warming by political parties as well as voluntary charity organizations alike have been rampant in the U.K. This form of voicing one’s opinion for opposing a certain law and demonstrating disagreements on the governmental decisions is increasing and rapidly gaining momentum. Although such protests might be perceived as an inevitable means of sustaining democratic governance of the country on the other hand laws prohibiting such public demonstrations as a form of protests such as Sections 11 to 14 of the Public Order Act, 1986 which deals with prohibiting public processions and imposing restrictions on public assemblies might hamper the very fabric of a liberal and efficient democratic system of the United Kingdom. It has been largely observed that public demonstrations for socio – political causes are increasingly being targeted with such legislations aimed at restricting such vivid expressions of public disapproval. The U.K law, through the Public Order Act has inadvertently laid prohibitions on the right to hold demonstrations in public which subsequently suggests that campaigning for causes that concerns the general public / citizens might lead to breach of law of the nation further leading to strict legal action. The blurring divide between freedom of expression and the legal consequences – civil as well as criminal, on account of voicing one’s opinions, under the legislation, is emerging as a highly inadequate means in sustaining civil society thus pressing for an urgent need to introspect the legal framework and advocate policies for much needed change. The strict laws that more or less, seeks to prohibit public assemblies campaigning against causes political or otherwise, and the rather strict repercussions which might lead to registration of criminal offenses against the campaigners prevents the lawful right of the campaigners – as well as members of the general public participating in such protests, to generate awareness of issues that involves their individual as well as collective interests, which in turn obstructs their very purpose of evoking public sympathy for the cause being campaigned. Thus such laws not only leads to prevent the most fundamental right of freedom of expression but also leads to a severe violation of human rights which threatens to erupt the very foundation of democracy of the nation as a whole. 2. Discussion of Case Study U.K has had a successful and impeccable history of peaceful protests and demonstrations however the recent legislations that seeks to prohibit public demonstrations and assemblies levying exceptional restrictions giving way to civil as well as criminal charges against those involved or found guilty, has raised serious concerns among the demonstrators campaigning for public causes and civil liberties. One such legislation is the Public Order Act 1986. Some of the sections of the Act which tend to prohibit public demonstrations and raised concerns bordering on Human Rights are discussed here under. Case Study: Facts SSM (Stop State Murder) is an organisation opposed to the death penalty bill, which is proposed to be passed by a recently elected Government on account of raising concerns over number of people being killed by knife crimes. The group members of the organisation, which has a thriving branch of over 500 members in Penfield, are proposing to hold a march in the Penfield Centre on the day the legislation is scheduled to take place. The Chief Constable of Penfield Police, being aware of the proposed protest, has subsequently issued a notice to the organization as well as to its current president of the Penfield branch of SSM, under s14 Public Order Act 1986 imposing the following conditions on the SSM demonstration planned for 1st May 2009:- 1) Any demonstration to be held by the SSM between 1st March 2008 and 1st October 2009 should be held in Penfield Country Park, at least 15 miles from Penfield City Centre; 2) The maximum number of demonstrators shall be 50 3) The maximum duration of the demonstration shall be 8 hours; 4) There should be no public speeches and; 5) That in the event of any counter demonstration or hostility shown towards SSM, the Penfield Police reserves the right to cancel the demonstration immediately. It is believed that a small group of about 10 demonstrators which supports the death penalty is proposing to try and disrupt the protest in the park. Discussion and Analysis: According to Section.14: of the Public Order Act, 1986 which deals with Imposing Conditions on Public Assemblies 1) “If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is being held or is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route, reasonably believes that— a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do, he may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation, including conditions as to the route of the procession or prohibiting it from entering any public place specified in the directions.” In the present case, Chief Constable of the Penfield Police is reasonably aware of certain critical facts of the case regarding the demonstrations likely to take place in the area, such as, the strength of demonstrators believed to participate in the march, as well as likely disruption of the march by protestors supporting the bill, which satisfies S.14 (1) (a) of the Public Order Act, and thus he is justified in imposing the restrictions as mentioned above in order to ensure peace and stability to the people living in the nearby vicinity. 3. Human Rights and the Right to Protest The Human Rights Act 1998 established by the European Convention guarantees basic rights to all human beings in relation to protection of their individuality as well as matters that concerns them such as right to lead a peaceful life, right not to endure physical or mental torture, as well as a right that ensures a fair trial in the courts of law. It also includes right to freedom of expression which includes holding peaceful demonstrations and forming unions for the prevention of collective rights of a group or organization. According to Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Human Rights Act 1998: 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. 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 the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary2. According to Article 11 (1) and (2) of the Act: 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. 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 State3. The most crucial factor in ascertaining whether a particular protest or demonstration falls within the purview of the definition of what constitutes a ‘peaceful assembly’ and whether it should be considered as a violent protest either in itself or as a result of demonstrations or violence instituted against it can be inferred from the case of Christians against Racism and Fascism V UK Application No. 8440/78, (1980)4. According to the verdict of courts of law in cases Steel and Others V UK and Hashman and Harrup V UK violation of article 10 in respect of public protest which apparently led to breach of peace, led to a decision that favored complete ignorance of rights granted under article 11 of the same act. Although the term breach of peace is not precisely defined in the Act the interpretation of the term could be inferred from the case R V Howell as presented by the Court of Appeal: “We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly, or other disturbance”5. 4. Suggestions & Advice Advise, giving reasons, whether Sam Powers and/or SSM can use the Human Rights Act 1998 to challenge the decision of the Chief Constable On the basis of the above discussions of both the laws concerned in this case, namely, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986, it can be said that the neither Sam Powers nor SSM can seek remedy under the Human Rights Act to challenge the decision of the Chief Constable on the following grounds: a. Neither of the Articles 10 or 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which deals with freedom of expression and hold peaceful protests, have been violated by the decision of the Chief Constable. Thus there is no prima facie case of violation of Human Rights. b. The restrictions related to place, time and number of people involved in the demonstration imposed by the Chief of Police, is strictly in consideration with the extent of damage likely to be caused in absence of such a prohibition. c. The Public Order Act 1986, grants the public authority a right to impose section 14. , in cases where there is reasonable ground to believe that the protest may cause or lead to cause substantial damage to the property as well as person/s involved. The Chief Constable has reason to believe that the supporters of the legislation a relatively small group of 10 demonstrators are likely to disrupt the peaceful march which may lead to heightened tension among both the groups leading to violence and chaos. Hence in order to maintain peace and ensure adequate protection of civil liberties of the people living in the near by vicinity, it is of utmost significance to carry out such restrictions as suggested by the Chief Constable. References: Good Reads: Quotes by Fredrick Douglass, viewed: January 14, 2009 from: < http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/18943.Frederick_Douglass> Office of Public Sector Information, viewed: January 14, 2009, from: Lawson E.H., Bertucci M.L., Wiseberg L.S., (1996). Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Taylor & Francis Publication, Pp. 463. Fenwick H., Phillipson, G., (2003). Text, Cases, Materials on Public Law & Human Rights, Routledge Cavendish Publication, Pp.950 Richard C, (2000). Public Order Law, Jordans Publication, Pp. 22 Read More