R (Singh) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
PIL acted for a Sikh protester who was protesting outside the Birmingham Repertory theatre against the play “Behzti” (meaning “dishonour”) on 16th December 2004. Although violence later erupted on 18th December, what people do not know is that individuals were peacefully protesting for more than a week in the period leading up to the 18th. Members of the Sikh community had been inside and outside the theatre handing out leaflets and speaking to members of the public.
On 16th December our client was with a group of other protesters who were allowed into the theatre to hand out leaflets and speak to theatre goers. The police ejected the protesters from the theatre without any difficulty but then immediately dispersed them under section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 before they had even had a chance to continue with their protest outside the theatre building.
Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act allows police to disperse individuals where there are reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed in localities where anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. However, the Home Office Circular on the Act (004/2004) states that the aim of these powers is to prevent people from feeling frightened and discouraged from using public spaces because they feel threatened by groups of people “hanging around” and to protect children and young people from the risks of being unaccompanied on the streets late at night. In this case, the authorisation in Birmingham City Centre was due to persistent problems connected to alcohol and entertainment in the area in the run up to Christmas.
PIL consider that Parliament could not have intended that such powers be used against protesters exercising their right to freedom of expression (article 10) and assembly (article 11) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, in this case, it is considered that the use of the dispersal power was disproportionate because the police should have considered alternatives. The protesters were dispersed as soon as they came outside the theatre. They were never given the option of continuing their protest outside, if necessary, with conditions imposed by the police.
Our client was one of those who refused to disperse and was subsequently arrested, detained in a cell for almost 4 hours and had fingerprint and DNA samples taken. PIL consider that the case is an example of the potential for abuse of powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act and a disproportionate interference in our client’s right to peacefully protest.
The High Court heard the judicial review on 3 and 4 November 2005 but decided against our client. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 14 July and again found against him. We did not seek permission to appeal to the House of Lords. Counsel was Monica Carrs-Frisk QC and David Pievsky of Blackstone Chambers.