"We are not asserting criminal damage, occupation of large parts of Parliament Square or any particular activity of Mr Haw and Mrs Tucker in Parliament Square. "We are saying that their occupation of a part of it is, by itself, what we are concerned about."
The nature, duration and location of the protest were within Article 10 and 11 of the human rights act, which cover freedom of expression, association and assembly, and could only be challenged with if there was a pressing social need.
But, added counsel: "The greater the extent of the right claimed, the greater the risk of that right having to be curtailed to protect the rights and freedoms of others."
Today, a spokesman for the mayor said: "The mayor is pleased that the high court has supported previous rulings to return possession of Parliament Square Gardens to the Greater London authority (GLA).
"The court of appeal had previously made a special case for Brian Haw and Barbara Tucker that they could continue to sleep on the grass area controlled by the GLA on a temporary basis while their case was referred back to the high court for conclusion in this matter.
"The high court has now concluded that neither party should be allowed to continue to sleep on the GLA-controlled grass. The perimeter fences will be adjusted accordingly."
It is reported that Brian , Barbara and their supporters plan to appeal.