Birmingham City Council v Afsar & Ors (Rev 2) [2019] EWHC 3217 (QB) (26 November 2019)

Birmingham City Council v Afsar & Ors (Rev 2) [2019] EWHC 3217 (QB) (26 November 2019)

The Council had statutory power to seek, and the court to grant, injunctions restricting the manner of protests and online abuse where necessary and proportionate to prevent disorder and protect the rights of others. The Equality Act 2010 did not apply to the content of the curriculum, and the teaching at the school was lawful and not discriminatory. Restrictions on street protests were justified and proportionate, but restrictions on social media speech were not shown to be necessary. Injunctions could be granted against the first three defendants and Persons Unknown who had been served, but not against Mr Allman.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3217
Parties
Claimant: Birmingham City Council; First Defendant: Mr Shakeel Afsar; Second Defendant: Ms Rosina Afsar; Third Defendant: Mr Amir Ahmed; Fourth Defendant: Persons Unknown seeking to express opinions about the teaching at Anderton Park Primary School; Fifth Defendant: John William Allman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Claim for Injunctions (civil) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Injunctions granted in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Equality Act 2010, Anti Social Behaviour, Public Nuisance, Obstruction of Highway, Curriculum Content, Discrimination (direct and Indirect), Parental Rights
Public Law Education Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Injunctions Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Equality Act 2010 +6 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birmingham City Council

Claimant

Mr Shakeel Afsar

First Defendant

Ms Rosina Afsar

Second Defendant

Mr Amir Ahmed

Third Defendant

Persons Unknown seeking to express opinions about the teaching at Anderton Park Primary School

Fourth Defendant

John William Allman

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Injunctions (civil) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council has statutory power to seek injunctions restricting protests and online abuse relating to school teaching of LGBT issues
  2. 2 Whether the teaching or school conduct amounts to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the restrictions sought are necessary and proportionate interferences with Convention rights (Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 ECHR)

Ratio Decidendi

The Council had statutory power to seek, and the court to grant, injunctions restricting the manner of protests and online abuse where necessary and proportionate to prevent disorder and protect the rights of others. The Equality Act 2010 did not apply to the content of the curriculum, and the teaching at the school was lawful and not discriminatory. Restrictions on street protests were justified and proportionate, but restrictions on social media speech were not shown to be necessary. Injunctions could be granted against the first three defendants and Persons Unknown who had been served, but not against Mr Allman.

Court Disposition

Injunctions granted in part

Orders

  • Final injunctions granted against the first three defendants and Persons Unknown restricting the manner of street protests near the school, including an exclusion zone and limits on frequency, duration, and amplification.
  • No injunction continued restraining abusive statements on social media.