Halcrow & Anor v Crown Prosecution Service

Halcrow & Anor v Crown Prosecution Service

The interference with the appellants' rights under articles 9, 10, and 11 ECHR was justified and proportionate. There was sufficient evidence to show that the restriction was necessary to preserve Stonehenge for present and future generations, and no less restrictive means were available. The appellants did not have a reasonable excuse for entering the restricted area.

Parties
Appellant: Maryam Halcrow; Appellant: Angel Grace; Appellant: Lisa Mead; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Reasonable Excuse, Protected Sites, Regulatory Offences
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Proportionality Freedom of Religion Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Reasonable Excuse +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maryam Halcrow

Appellant

Angel Grace

Appellant

Lisa Mead

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in law in its determination on proportionality of interference with ECHR rights without evidence from the Crown
  2. 2 Whether the court failed to interpret 'reasonable excuse' compatibly with the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The interference with the appellants' rights under articles 9, 10, and 11 ECHR was justified and proportionate. There was sufficient evidence to show that the restriction was necessary to preserve Stonehenge for present and future generations, and no less restrictive means were available. The appellants did not have a reasonable excuse for entering the restricted area.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants' appeals against conviction dismissed.