The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors

The Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) v Haw & Ors

It is proportionate to make a possession order and grant injunctions against the First and Second Defendants. The Defendants are trespassers, their activities interfere with the rights of others, and there is a pressing social need to prevent indefinite camping on Parliament Square Gardens. The interference with their Convention rights is justified, as they have had substantial opportunity to protest and may continue to do so from the pavement. There is no medical or legal basis requiring permission for camping on PSG, and no unlawful disability discrimination has been established.

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
Civil / Judgment After Remittal From Court of Appeal on Proportionality of Possession Order and Injunctions
Outcome
Relief granted to the Claimant substantially as claimed, subject to exclusion of the kerb area used for the pavement protest; final order to be settled at handing down of judgment.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Trespass, Proportionality, Possession Proceedings, Disability Discrimination
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Property Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Trespass Proportionality Possession Proceedings +1 more

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 5 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

Civil / Judgment After Remittal From Court of Appeal on Proportionality of Possession Order and Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is proportionate to make a possession order and grant injunctions against the First and Second Defendants in light of their rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' activities on Parliament Square Gardens justify interference with their Convention rights
  3. 3 Whether the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on the Claimant to make reasonable adjustments for the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

It is proportionate to make a possession order and grant injunctions against the First and Second Defendants. The Defendants are trespassers, their activities interfere with the rights of others, and there is a pressing social need to prevent indefinite camping on Parliament Square Gardens. The interference with their Convention rights is justified, as they have had substantial opportunity to protest and may continue to do so from the pavement. There is no medical or legal basis requiring permission for camping on PSG, and no unlawful disability discrimination has been established.

Court Disposition

Relief granted to the Claimant substantially as claimed, subject to exclusion of the kerb area used for the pavement protest; final order to be settled at handing down of judgment.

Orders

  • Possession order against the First and Second Defendants in respect of Parliament Square Gardens (excluding the kerb area integral to the pavement protest)
  • Mandatory injunction requiring removal of tents and structures from PSG by the First and Second Defendants