Gallastegui, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council & Ors [2012] EWHC 1123 (Admin) (27 April 2012)

Gallastegui, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council & Ors [2012] EWHC 1123 (Admin) (27 April 2012)

Sections 143 and 145 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 do not constitute an absolute prohibition on protest but confer discretionary powers to restrict certain activities, subject to Convention rights. The SOCPA authorisations did not override Westminster's statutory powers. The restrictions imposed are justified, proportionate, and rationally connected to legitimate aims, and do not breach Articles 10 or 11 ECHR. There is no positive obligation on the State to facilitate overnight protest in these circumstances.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1123 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Maria Gallastegui; Defendant: Westminster City Council; First Interested Party: The Commissioner for the Metropolis; Second Interested Party: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment Following Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Protest Law, Police Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Proportionality, Human Rights Act 1998, European Convention on Human Rights
Public Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Protest Law Police Powers Statutory Interpretation +3 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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Gallastegui

Claimant

Westminster City Council

Defendant

The Commissioner for the Metropolis

First Interested Party

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment Following Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether enforcement of Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 against the claimant is unlawful due to prior SOCPA authorisation
  2. 2 Whether sections 143 and 145 of the Act are incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR (freedom of expression and assembly) and Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the restrictions imposed by the Act are proportionate and justified

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 143 and 145 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 do not constitute an absolute prohibition on protest but confer discretionary powers to restrict certain activities, subject to Convention rights. The SOCPA authorisations did not override Westminster's statutory powers. The restrictions imposed are justified, proportionate, and rationally connected to legitimate aims, and do not breach Articles 10 or 11 ECHR. There is no positive obligation on the State to facilitate overnight protest in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review granted
  • Substantive claim dismissed