Laporte, R (on the application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary & Ors

Laporte, R (on the application of) v Gloucestershire Constabulary & Ors

Preventive police action short of arrest was lawful in the circumstances due to the real risk of a breach of the peace and the impracticality of distinguishing between individuals, but the enforced detention and return of the protesters to London for two and a half hours was disproportionate and unlawful as it went beyond what was necessary and reasonable to prevent a breach of the peace.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Jane Laporte; Respondent/defendant: Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary; Interested Party: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police; Interested Party: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Intervener: Liberty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; lower court's declarations upheld.
Legal Topics
Police Powers, Breach of the Peace, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Judicial Review, Detention, Proportionality, Collective Action, Public Order Policing
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Police Law Police Powers Breach of the Peace Freedom of Assembly Freedom of Expression +5 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Laporte

Appellant/claimant

Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary

Respondent/defendant

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Interested Party

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Interested Party

Liberty

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police action in preventing protesters from proceeding to a demonstration and escorting them back to London was lawful under common law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
  2. 2 Whether preventive police action short of arrest requires the same imminence as arrest for breach of the peace
  3. 3 Whether collective preventive action against a group is lawful where individual identification of potential offenders is impractical

Ratio Decidendi

Preventive police action short of arrest was lawful in the circumstances due to the real risk of a breach of the peace and the impracticality of distinguishing between individuals, but the enforced detention and return of the protesters to London for two and a half hours was disproportionate and unlawful as it went beyond what was necessary and reasonable to prevent a breach of the peace.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; lower court's declarations upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration that the decision to forcibly return the Claimant from Lechlade to London was unlawful stands.
  • Refusal of declaration that the decision to prevent the Claimant from proceeding to Fairford was unlawful stands.