Gallastegui, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council & Ors

Gallastegui, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council & Ors

The enforcement of Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 against the claimant was lawful; SOCPA authorisations did not override Westminster's powers under the Act. Sections 143 and 145 of the Act do not constitute an absolute prohibition but confer discretionary powers subject to Convention rights. The restrictions are proportionate, justified, and necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and do not infringe the claimant's rights under Articles 10, 11, or 6 ECHR. There is no incompatibility with the ECHR, and the claimant's applications are dismissed.

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 After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Statutory Interpretation
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Judicial Review Proportionality Statutory Interpretation

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 27 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 After 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), Article 6 ECHR (fair trial), and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property rights)
  3. 3 Whether Westminster's decision to enforce the Act infringed the claimant's ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The enforcement of Part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 against the claimant was lawful; SOCPA authorisations did not override Westminster's powers under the Act. Sections 143 and 145 of the Act do not constitute an absolute prohibition but confer discretionary powers subject to Convention rights. The restrictions are proportionate, justified, and necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and do not infringe the claimant's rights under Articles 10, 11, or 6 ECHR. There is no incompatibility with the ECHR, and the claimant's applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted for judicial review but all substantive claims dismissed
  • No declaration of incompatibility made