References:  EWHC 3846 (Admin), (2014) 178 JP 67,  1 WLR 2984,  WLR(D) 139
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Coram: Goldring LJ, Ouseley J
Ratio:The defendant apealed against his conviction for having taken part in a public procession, a a Critical Mass Cycle Ride, knowingly in breach of conditions attached to it by the Police. The defendant had argued that the ride was not a procession.
Held: The appeal failed. 'The power to give directions is to be used, not just when the organisers of a procession have been co-operative enough to tell the police in advance of their intentions as to a specific route, but and perhaps more importantly when they have not done so. It would be an absurd interpretation if a direction, aimed at preventing serious disruption, could not be given unless the police knew as a matter of objectively provable fact that the procession would follow a specific route from A to B via particular roads, despite disruptive organisers masking their intentions. It cannot be that, until the police know the specific route, they cannot use s12 to prevent the use of a reasonably possible but seriously disruptive route. The power to give directions would not be useable when most needed; and it could always be objected that the police did not know what the route was to be, but had merely believed, however reasonably, that it could take a disruptive route.'
Statutes: Public Order Act 1986 12(5)
This case cites:
- - Cited - Kay -v- Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis HL (Bailii,  UKHL 69, HL, Times,  1 WLR 2723,  RTR 16,  HRLR 10,  2 All ER 935)
The claimant had been involved in a monthly cycle ride through central London which had continued for many years. The ride took place without any central organisation and without any route being pre-planned. They objected to being required to apply . .
- Cited - Kay -v- The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Admn (Bailii,  EWHC 1536 (Admin), Times 30-Jun-06,  Po LR 111,  RTR 39,  ACD 86)
For many years and in many large cities, once a month, cyclists had gathered en masse to cycle through the city in a 'Critical Mass' demonstration. There was no central organisation. Clarification was sought as to whether the consent of the police . .
- Cited - Flockhart -v- Robinson ( 2 KB 498)
A challenge was made to the organising of a procession. Its route was determined by Mr Flockhart as he went along.
Held: For the purposes of section 3(4) of the 1936 Act, a procession 'is a body of persons moving along a route' and that, by . .
- Cited - Jukes and Others -v- Director of Public Prosecutions Admn (Bailii,  EWHC 195 (Admin))
Two of those participating in a march demonstrating against cuts in the education budget, left that march to join the Occupy Movement's demonstration in Trafalgar Square against the excesses of capitalism. They were, convicted at Westminster . .
Last Update: 05-Jul-16