Brian Haw evicted from Parliament Square Gardens

St Patrick’s day saw the eviction of Mr Brian Haw from Parliament Square Gardens, a site he has occupied since 2001 in his one-man protest over the foreign policy of the United Kingdom Government. Mr Haw may be as mad as a ‘box of frogs’ but his protest is not.

Every attempt by the Government of New Labour who enacted legislation for the sole purpose of removing him was thwarted by the court who were happy to uphold the principle of the non-retroactive application of statutes in order to protect Mr Haw’s rights at a time when, throughout the Kingdom, an authoritarian government were trampling all over civil liberties of most of Her Majesty’s Crown Subjects. It was ‘one in the eye’ to the government from the judiciary who were no lovers of Blair or his government. It was a real ‘two-fingered’ job and a source of deep satisfaction to some of us who enjoyed watching the impotent rage and bluster of Home Secretary David ‘blind-git’ Blunkett in Parliament, incandescent with anger at the way in which his ‘cunning plan’ had spectacularly backfired.

New Labour have gone, London has a new Mayor, ‘Bumbling Boris’ and the ‘great and the good’ from all over the world will shortly descend upon London from all over the world for the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Unfortunately, just like crippled soldiers in wheelchairs post-OP CORPORATE, Mr Haw has become something of an embarrassment for the political establishment who now wish to be rid of him, and more importantly, those who associate with him.

The argument is that Mr Haw, who has permission to be there, encourages those who do not, and as a result, inconvenience is caused to others.

It is an interesting argument. One may take the view t that as legal arguments go, it has taken the collective intelligence of the best legal brains in the Kingdom some ten years to painstakingly construct. Or alternatively, it is an argument which owes more to the triumphant victory of expediency over that of the rights which the judiciary were happy to protect for nearly a decade!

Mayor of London v Haw and Others [2011] EWHC 585 (QB)[/FONT]
Parliament Square Gardens (PSG) comprised the central area of Parliament Square around which ran the public highway. It was a highly important open space and garden at the heart of London and the Parliamentary democracy; it was an area of significant historic and symbolic value worldwide. In June 2001, the first defendant began to protest on a pavement on the east side of PSG. He did so in order to register his disapproval of the policy adopted by the government of the day towards the regime in Iraq and the effect of that policy upon Iraqi citizens. The protest was in the nature of a vigil; the first defendant remained on the pavement continuously, leaving only to attend to such things as going to the toilet. In 2002, the local authority unsuccessfully brought proceedings against the first defendant in which it sought an injunction to restrain him from obstructing the pavement (see [2002] All ER (D) 59 (Oct)). In July 2005, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 came into force. Sections 132 to 138 dealt with demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. They provided for a system of notices and authorisation, subject to conditions, for such demonstrations. Where an unauthorised demonstration was carried on or a condition not complied with, an offence was committed.

The first defendant applied for authorisation. Authorisation was given which was subject to conditions. Litigation ensued about those conditions which was resolved in favour of the first defendant (see[2006] All ER (D) 94 (May)). In consequence, the authorisation of the first defendant's demonstrations was made subject to a new set of conditions. In May 2010, the claimant sought an order for possession of PSG against the defendants. He also sought mandatory injunction and restraining injunctions. He sought a mandatory injunction requiring named defendants (including the first and second defendants) to dismantle and remove from PSG all tents and other structure erected thereon. He sought a restraining injunction preventing the defendants from returning to PSG with any such tents or structures. The judge granted an order for possession of PSG against all defendants save for two. Further, the judge granted injunctions against the first and second defendants compelling them to dismantle and remove from a defined area of PSG all tents and other structures and restraining them from bringing on to PSG any tent or similar structure except in accordance with any permission granted by or on behalf of the claimant. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. Nearly all of the defendants were unsuccessful; however, the appeals of the first and second defendant succeeded. The Court of Appeal made an order remitting the issue of the proportionality of making the possession order or grant of an injunction against the first and second defendants to the High Court (see[2010] All ER (D) 171 (Jul)).

The issue was whether the claimant had established that the defendants' activities (either individually or cumulatively) on PSG interfered with the rights of other members of the public and that the order sought meet a pressing social need.
On the evidence, the claimant had established that the defendants' activities taken either individually or cumulatively did constitute an interference with the rights of others and there was a pressing social need which justified the making of the orders. Accordingly, it was proportionate to make the possession order and grant the injunction against the first and second defendants (see [57] of the judgment).
don't see what a copy & paste from wikipedia proves, are you bringing to attention the fact he's gone, or are you saying the courts ruling was wrong

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads