mayor of london & brian haws pspc - a story of three "laws"/no law
babs tucker | 02.07.2010 11:19 | Liverpool
here is a link to the copy of the judgment
The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1613.html
while boris' circus which really is a case of the emperor who had no clothes but rather a lot of window dressing - continues apace BOTH at the court of appeal and in parliament square - with the media drooling & everyone apparently up for a show - bar brian haws parliament square peace campaign - i lodged my own appeal CI/2010/1598 - this morning in the court of appeal - for historical purposes really - given the concept of anyone doing "law' went flying out the window long ago.
behind the main event what is really going on is far more mundane.
it is the story of three "laws" & the use of public space where there is peaceful general 24/7 public access.
a) obstruction of the highway
b) socpa 2005 ss 132-138
c) boris' freedom of expression & assembly bye-laws
a) In Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 (QB) (04 October 2002)
obviously brian haws campaign which is "virtually identical" (ie smaller !!) was found to not be an unreasonable obstruction (of the pavement or grass)
this ruling is a spin off from
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones and Another [1999] UKHL 5 (11th February, 1999)
b) so the government sophists created socpa 2005 ss 132-138 which boils down to you need authorisation for what has already been decided to be lawful.
this ended up with: brians campaign having no case to answer confirmed in the high court: Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (06 August 2007) - and where the cover up over the illegal seizure on 23rd may 2006 continues -one should hardly need to argue that the 101 set of conditions are unlawful...
c) ditto boris' byelaws - you should not need authorization for what has already been found in brian haws campaigns case, to be lawful.
it is ridiculous that parliament created law upon law in a small area of central london that requires you to need authorization from this authority and that for what has already been found to be lawful.
and thats before you get near to the lack of certainty etc by these three "laws" not even being applied uniformly.
under boris' bulldozer of cpr 55 i was denied - for example - the (21 days) opportunity to notify the sshd of the socpa anomoly to get a declaration of incompatibilty and i wasnt "allowed" on the witness stand long enough to give evidence of that in terms of the bye-laws also.
while justice griffith williams did not address these issues that were raised in my written final submission - (let's face it i'd worked out i wasnt going to get to speak) that have been raised in my "appeal".
if we are being honest - the mayor who sent in the goons in 2007 without taking us to court had three years to take us to court and this route starting in the high court under cpr 55 has essentially been used to deny any proper hearing that (in theory) you would get through a magistrates hearing which has the automatic right of appeal to the crown court - which is not quite the same thing as being bounced through the high court to the court of appeal.
i said in amongst my "grounds of appeal" that i want declarations of incompatibility - you cannot use three "laws" like this.
In seeking Declarations of Incompatibility I primarily rely on DPP v Jones 1999
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones and Another [1999] UKHL 5 (11th February, 1999)
"This ruling makes clear for example, that public authorities cannot seek to use additional laws (such as conditions) to make what is otherwise lawful, unlawful.
I am seeking through this appeal to address and end the lack of clarity and the uncertainty that very clearly exists, when three different ‘laws’ (obstruction of the highway, SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 and GLA bye-laws) can be applied – for example - to the same person using the same public space to conduct the same activity.
It is obvious that Article 10 & 11 are engaged and that SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 & the bye-laws are being used to create offences when an unreasonable use cannot be made out under obstruction of the highway."
i also said:
1.It is wholly irrational and unreasonable to say after four years, that for this woman to continue to be a member of Brian Haw’s 24/7 Parliament Square Peace Campaign this woman must either:
• place herself at risk of serious physical harm by resting or having shelter on the pavement of what is a busy roundabout surrounded by five lanes of traffic where a vehicle may mount the pavement or shed its load, which would cause me serious injury or death
• or rather than face serious injury and death, break an injunction where I would go to prison.
Clearly a court could not reasonably demand that a Defendant put themselves at risk of serious injury or death or face imprisonment, whilst the Defendant was merely exercising their Convention Rights.
no doubt the story of three laws/no law will continue.....
The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1613.html while boris' circus which really is a case of the emperor who had no clothes but rather a lot of window dressing - continues apace BOTH at the court of appeal and in parliament square - with the media drooling & everyone apparently up for a show - bar brian haws parliament square peace campaign - i lodged my own appeal CI/2010/1598 - this morning in the court of appeal - for historical purposes really - given the concept of anyone doing "law' went flying out the window long ago.
behind the main event what is really going on is far more mundane.
it is the story of three "laws" & the use of public space where there is peaceful general 24/7 public access.
a) obstruction of the highway
b) socpa 2005 ss 132-138
c) boris' freedom of expression & assembly bye-laws
a) In Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 (QB) (04 October 2002)
obviously brian haws campaign which is "virtually identical" (ie smaller !!) was found to not be an unreasonable obstruction (of the pavement or grass)
this ruling is a spin off from
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones and Another [1999] UKHL 5 (11th February, 1999)
b) so the government sophists created socpa 2005 ss 132-138 which boils down to you need authorisation for what has already been decided to be lawful.
this ended up with: brians campaign having no case to answer confirmed in the high court: Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin) (06 August 2007) - and where the cover up over the illegal seizure on 23rd may 2006 continues -one should hardly need to argue that the 101 set of conditions are unlawful...
c) ditto boris' byelaws - you should not need authorization for what has already been found in brian haws campaigns case, to be lawful.
it is ridiculous that parliament created law upon law in a small area of central london that requires you to need authorization from this authority and that for what has already been found to be lawful.
and thats before you get near to the lack of certainty etc by these three "laws" not even being applied uniformly.
under boris' bulldozer of cpr 55 i was denied - for example - the (21 days) opportunity to notify the sshd of the socpa anomoly to get a declaration of incompatibilty and i wasnt "allowed" on the witness stand long enough to give evidence of that in terms of the bye-laws also.
while justice griffith williams did not address these issues that were raised in my written final submission - (let's face it i'd worked out i wasnt going to get to speak) that have been raised in my "appeal".
if we are being honest - the mayor who sent in the goons in 2007 without taking us to court had three years to take us to court and this route starting in the high court under cpr 55 has essentially been used to deny any proper hearing that (in theory) you would get through a magistrates hearing which has the automatic right of appeal to the crown court - which is not quite the same thing as being bounced through the high court to the court of appeal.
i said in amongst my "grounds of appeal" that i want declarations of incompatibility - you cannot use three "laws" like this.
In seeking Declarations of Incompatibility I primarily rely on DPP v Jones 1999
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones and Another [1999] UKHL 5 (11th February, 1999)
"This ruling makes clear for example, that public authorities cannot seek to use additional laws (such as conditions) to make what is otherwise lawful, unlawful.
I am seeking through this appeal to address and end the lack of clarity and the uncertainty that very clearly exists, when three different ‘laws’ (obstruction of the highway, SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 and GLA bye-laws) can be applied – for example - to the same person using the same public space to conduct the same activity.
It is obvious that Article 10 & 11 are engaged and that SOCPA 2005 ss 132-138 & the bye-laws are being used to create offences when an unreasonable use cannot be made out under obstruction of the highway."
i also said:
1.It is wholly irrational and unreasonable to say after four years, that for this woman to continue to be a member of Brian Haw’s 24/7 Parliament Square Peace Campaign this woman must either:
• place herself at risk of serious physical harm by resting or having shelter on the pavement of what is a busy roundabout surrounded by five lanes of traffic where a vehicle may mount the pavement or shed its load, which would cause me serious injury or death
• or rather than face serious injury and death, break an injunction where I would go to prison.
Clearly a court could not reasonably demand that a Defendant put themselves at risk of serious injury or death or face imprisonment, whilst the Defendant was merely exercising their Convention Rights.
no doubt the story of three laws/no law will continue.....
babs tucker
