The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors [2011] EWHC 585 (QB) (17 March 2011)

The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors [2011] EWHC 585 (QB) (17 March 2011)

The Defendants' activities on Parliament Square Gardens constitute an interference with the rights of others and there is a pressing social need justifying the orders sought. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is proportionate given the indefinite nature of the protest, incompatibility with the lawful use and management of the area, and the lack of medical necessity for camping on the grass. No reasonable adjustments are required under the Equality Act 2010 as no provision, criterion, or practice puts the First Defendant at a substantial disadvantage.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 585 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Mayor of London (on behalf of the Greater London Authority); First Defendant: Brian Haw; Second Defendant: Barbara Tucker; Third Defendant: Charity Sweet
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Possession and Injunction Proceedings / Remitted Proportionality Determination Following Court of Appeal
Outcome
Relief granted to Claimant substantially as claimed, subject to exclusion of kerb area from possession and injunction orders.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Trespass, Proportionality, Disability Discrimination
Public Law Human Rights Law Property Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Trespass Proportionality Disability Discrimination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor of London (on behalf of the Greater London Authority)

Claimant

Brian Haw

First Defendant

Barbara Tucker

Second Defendant

Charity Sweet

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Injunction Proceedings / Remitted Proportionality Determination Following Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is proportionate to grant a possession order and injunction against Defendants for camping on Parliament Square Gardens
  2. 2 Whether Defendants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR are unjustifiably interfered with
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' activities on Parliament Square Gardens constitute an interference with the rights of others and there is a pressing social need justifying the orders sought. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is proportionate given the indefinite nature of the protest, incompatibility with the lawful use and management of the area, and the lack of medical necessity for camping on the grass. No reasonable adjustments are required under the Equality Act 2010 as no provision, criterion, or practice puts the First Defendant at a substantial disadvantage.

Court Disposition

Relief granted to Claimant substantially as claimed, subject to exclusion of kerb area from possession and injunction orders.

Orders

  • Order for possession of Parliament Square Gardens against Defendants (excluding kerb area)
  • Mandatory injunction requiring Defendants to dismantle and remove tents and structures from Parliament Square Gardens (excluding kerb area)