Singh & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 may be used to disperse a protest group where its statutory conditions are met. The provision does not exclude protests merely because they engage freedom of expression, religion or assembly. Its use remains subject to proportionality and ordinary public law controls.

In assessing proportionality, decision-makers must consider whether the legitimate aim could be achieved by less intrusive measures. Courts should respect the difficult predictive judgments required of police officers, while closely scrutinising the practical effect on fundamental rights. A section 30 authorisation need not have been made specifically in contemplation of the group later targeted, provided the statutory conditions for the direction are independently satisfied.

The claimant challenged a dispersal direction issued during protests against a theatre production, together with his arrest and caution for failing to comply. The direction was made under section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, pursuant to an authorisation originally made to address seasonal anti-social behaviour in the locality.

The court considered whether section 30 could apply to protests, whether the direction disproportionately interfered with Convention rights, whether the authorisation could be used against a previously unforeseen group, and whether the police acted irrationally by taking account of events on the preceding day.

1. Application dismissed. The dispersal direction, and consequently the arrest and caution, were lawful.
2. Section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 is capable of applying to protest groups. Parliament expressly excluded certain conduct, including specified processions and lawful conduct under section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That indicated that protests were not impliedly excluded. The section does not override fundamental rights; its operation is controlled by its statutory safeguards, proportionality and other public law principles.
3. The claimant’s rights under articles 9 and 10 of the Convention were engaged. The directions pursued legitimate aims and were prescribed by law. Proportionality required consideration of less intrusive means, but the court allowed a high degree of respect for the police assessment of risks while closely scrutinising the practical impact on rights. The officers had considered several alternatives and reasonably regarded dispersal as the least intrusive effective option. The evidence of threats, disorder, alarm and distress, refusal to leave, and the presence of children in the theatre provided ample justification.
4. The authorisation remained available even though it had originally addressed a different manifestation of anti-social behaviour. Requiring a separate authorisation for every successive source of disorder would be impractical and inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The direction nevertheless required separate compliance with section 30(3), proportionality and ordinary public law standards.
5. The police were entitled to treat the protest group as having a continuing collective identity despite fluctuating membership and to take account of the previous day’s events. The irrationality challenge therefore failed. Permission to appeal was refused, although the claimant could apply to the Court of Appeal.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The court refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, while indicating that an application could be made to that court.