Parliament Square anti-protest rules upheld at High Court
Friday 27 April 2012
New rules preventing demonstrators sleeping near the Houses of Parliament were upheld by the High Court in a landmark ruling today.
Two judges rejected a test case human rights challenge brought by veteran peace campaigner Maria Gallastegui, who has been conducting an authorised 24-hour vigil on the East Pavement of Parliament Square in London since 2006.
Sir John Thomas, who is president of the Queen's Bench Division, sitting with Mr Justice Silber, said the rules were "plainly" lawful and did not offend against the Human Rights Act.
Ms Gallastegui, 53, a former coach driver who comes from Hammersmith, west London, said she was hopeful of overturning the ruling on appeal.
"I am hopeful that I can still win," she said after today's hearing. "The ruling today didn't surprise me really."
She added: "I'm not just fighting this case for me now. There's a lull in protest at the moment.
"This is for the future - for if another issue comes along and there is a critical mass of people who want to protest against, for example, another war."
Ms Gallastegui said she had been involved with the Parliament Square protest for 10 years and living on the site for six years.
Judges said Ms Gallastegui could not be moved until after a further High Court hearing Thursday next week.
At that hearing, lawyers for Ms Gallastegui said they would "probably" seek permission to appeal.
The new regulations under challenge came into force in December under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (PRASRA) and cover Parliament Square Gardens and the pavements surrounding it.
The legislation gives Westminster City Council powers to stop a "prohibited activity", including putting up tents or "other structures " that enable protesters to "sleep or stay for any period" in the area.
Refusal to obey directions to remove tents can constitute a criminal offence under Part 3 of the Act, and the police can seize the property of demonstrators.
The Home Office and the Metropolitan Police were listed as "interested parties" in today's application for judicial review.
Ms Gallastegui attacked the new laws for interfering with her property rights. She said they could also significantly interfere with her right to protest against "the folly of war and armed conflict", particularly the war in Afghanistan.
But the judges rejected her lawyers' arguments that, because she was legally authorised to continue her 24-hour vigil until April 2015, Westminster's decision on December 19 last year to enforce the regulations against her was unlawful and unreasonable
The judges also said they "unhesitatingly" rejected her claims that the new laws violated her right to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Justice Silber ruled the laws were "limited and proportionate" and it was "plainly open to Westminster Council to conclude on the facts of this case that it was entitled to exercise its powers under Part 3".
The powers being exercised by Westminster Council can also be exercised by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
The new act also amends existing bylaws so that the council can seize noise equipment where it is being used to create a disturbance.
Westminster said that, unless today's ruling is overturned on appeal, the council would now remove tents, sleeping equipment and any other structures from the highway and pavement around Parliament Square.
This included those belonging to Ms Gallastegui - "the last remaining protester" - who obtained an injunction restraining the council from using its new powers against her until her legal challenge was determined.
Westminster Council leader, Philippa Roe, said of today's ruling: "This will be welcome news for the millions of visitors who come to Westminster, as well as those who live in the city, as our world heritage site can now be returned to its former glory and used by everyone.
"For too long this green public space has been blighted by tents and encampments which have restricted the use of publicly-owned land, but we have worked hard to find a solution to this problem without prohibiting the rights for free speech and protests."
Jo from Northern Ireland was less than impressed by Russell Brand's attempt to stage a publicity stunt
When teaching the meaning of Christmas backfires
Weather bomb in pictures: Storms cuts power for tens of thousands – and snow is on the way
Jessica Chambers: 19-year-old woman 'doused with lighter fluid and burned alive' in the US
Russell Brand calls Nigel Farage 'poundshop Enoch Powell' in BBC Question Time debate
Russell Brand was rendered speechless on Question Time by this man
Fury at Airbus after it hints the super-jumbo may be mothballed
Nigel Farage: Me vs Russell Brand on Question Time – he's got the chest hair but where are his ideas?
Shock poll shows voters believe Ukip is to the left of the Tories
New era of cheap oil 'will destroy green revolution'
Disgruntled RBS worker writes hilarious open letter to Russell Brand after anti-capitalist publicity stunt leaves him hungry
Ukip founder Alan Sked and Nigel Farage 'begged Enoch Powell to stand as a candidate'
Ukip candidate jokes about 'shooting peasants' in racist and homophobic rant
- 2 Harry Potter fans can apply to the Hogwarts-inspired College of Wizardry
- 3 Jessica Chambers: 19-year-old woman 'doused with lighter fluid and burned alive' in the US
- 4 Russell Brand calls Nigel Farage 'poundshop Enoch Powell' in BBC Question Time debate
- 5 Orange Wednesdays are no more