after a postponed hearing at the high court today, parliament square protestors won the right to sustain their injunction against westminster council, stopping the council from enforcing the new and untested PASRA law to clear tents and other structures from the square. the injunction will run until a further 2-day high court hearing during march, which will effectively decide the legality of the new law.

click on image for larger version. 'some rights reserved' - free for credited non-commercial use, otherwise contact author for permission
----

about a dozen campaigners and supporters turned up at the high court this morning, attaching 'right to protest' banners on the court railings in the bright morning sunshine.

all parties shuffled into the small basement court ready to hear the case, but the judge said there'd been a mix-up, she wasn't sure why we'd all turned up, and the hearing wasn't till this afternoon. in fact, everyone had received the official court listings on friday afternoon, and the case was listed for 10.30, but the judge asked all to return at 2pm.

the 'claimant' in this case is maria gallestegui, who runs the 'peace strike' protest in parliament square, her two large boxes creating quite an impressive presence opposite the gates to parliament. along with the 'parliament square peace campaign', who continue the late brian haw's ten-year vigil, she received an enforcement letter from westminster council on the 19th december, the commencement date for the PASRA legislation giving the council powers to prevent overnight stays in the square and to seize sleeping equipment, tents and other structures. (see my previous articles for a fuller background etc)

so, maria went to the high court and asked for a temporary injunction to stop westminster (who then became the 'defendant') from exercising this new power without a judicial review.

today's hearing was meant to decide whether westminster had the power or not. if the case went against maria, westminster could have forcibly removed her tent and possibly her boxes.

this morning's delay in proceedings gave maria's barrister, jessica simor from matrix chambers, a chance to put a proposal to the westminster lawyers in the corridor outside the court. she told them that even if they were to win the case today, she would immediately be demanding an appeal, and this would have more cost implications to the council. there is also a separate case in the lower courts in which westminster are prosecuting the parliament square protestors for 'obstructing the highway'. jessica also warned that if westminster did go ahead with any enforcement, that there then may be further appeals and the possibility of substantial damages added to any costs.

maria's barrister suggested that the sensible route, since there are clearly overlapping human rights concerns, would be for both cases to be conflated, and to avoid otherwise unavoidable costs, that westminster should back off today, allowing the whole issue to be properly scrutinised in law before any action.

so during the morning, the defendant's (ie westminster's) lawyers had a lot to think about.

by the afternoon, a larger solidarity protest was organised, with a group of supporters joining from the st paul's 'occupy lsx' protest just up the road. the court filled up, and i counted 32 supporters, along with maria's legal team, the westminster legal team, some metropolitan police lawyers, who are an 'interested party' in the case, and police observers from the charing cross events team (who enforce and co-ordinate SOCPA-authorised protests in the area of parliament). there was also a lawyer appearing on behalf of the secretary of state. he said he was there in order to add the home office as a further 'interested party' since it was their new legislation that was being challenged.

in the court were also two uniformed police officers, and outside the high court (for both the morning and the afternoon sessions) were a forward intelligence gathering team, who were taking photographs of all the supporters. two TSG vans were also on standby nearby - perhaps they were worried a group might try to 'occupy the high court'!

once the session got underway, it became clear that the defendant's lawyers had had a word with their westminster colleagues, and backed down over their planned challenge to the injunction.

it was up to maria's barrister to inform the judge that all parties had reached agreement and that the new law would be tested in court BEFORE any enforcement took place. this was a huge victory for maria, as westminster's official response to the court had been a request for the judge to strike down the injunction and allow seizure, after which maria would have the right to try for a judicial review. instead now, westminster have agreed not to act UNTIL the legal arguments are tested.

all this didn't go down too well with the lawyer from the home office. he pointed out that the law had been drawn up by government and was 'primary criminal law'. it was, he said, a most unusual position for  a new law to be challenged by the judiciary before it is even used. he was anxious that any new hearing should take place as soon as possible, and also raised the concern that groups such as the 'occupy' movement, might yet try to establish new camps in the square.

(any takers?)

so a lot of diaries were consulted, and eventually it was decided that, after skeleton arguments were drawn up, responded to, and further evidence given, the court hearing could take place over two days in the middle of march. in the meantime, westminster are warned off applying the new law, at least on the 'claimant' maria, although it was briefly mentioned in court, and appeared sensible that no action would be taken against the 'parliament square peace campaign' either. however, this evening's news is otherwise

today's ruling will also have a knock on effect on proposed byelaws that westminster, the dept of culture, and the GLA are all considering, which would introduce the same ban on political camping throughout westminster, the royal parks and trafalgar square.

althought the westminster public consultation on new byelaws is now closed, the other two are still open this week, so it would be great to get a large number of negative responses in to these before they close. given that the whole PASRA camping legislation is under question for human rights compatibility now, it seems very premature to plan byelaws before any hearing and ruling. however, all the consultations give concerns over the growing 'occupy' movement as one of the reasons for wanting rapidly bring in what they refer to as a 'premature' reaction.


the consultations can be found at http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8710.aspx for the royal parks (ending next monday the 23rd jan), and the GLA one at http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/draft-byelaws-trafalgar-square-and-parliament-square-garden (ending on sunday the 22nd) for trafalgar square.