Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence

Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence

The prohibition on camping in paragraph 7(2)(f) of the 2007 Byelaws constitutes a violation of the appellant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. The restriction is not justified by a pressing social need or substantial objective justification. The manner and form of protest in this case is inseparable from its essence, and the Secretary of State’s justifications are insubstantial and unsupported by evidence. The margin of appreciation is not broad in this context, and the interference is disproportionate.

Parties
Appellant: Tabernacle; Respondent: The Secretary of State for Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Byelaws, Margin of Appreciation
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Judicial Review Proportionality Byelaws +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tabernacle

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 7(2)(f) of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston Byelaws 2007 unlawfully interferes with the appellant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
  2. 2 Whether the interference is justified as necessary in a democratic society under Article 10(2) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on camping in paragraph 7(2)(f) of the 2007 Byelaws constitutes a violation of the appellant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. The restriction is not justified by a pressing social need or substantial objective justification. The manner and form of protest in this case is inseparable from its essence, and the Secretary of State’s justifications are insubstantial and unsupported by evidence. The margin of appreciation is not broad in this context, and the interference is disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that paragraph 7(2)(f) of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston Byelaws 2007 is incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR; further relief to be determined after hearing argument.