Blum & Ors v DPP & Ors

An authorisation procedure for demonstrations may comply with Article 11 of the Convention. Where proceedings concern only participation in, or organisation of, an unauthorised demonstration, sanctions enforcing that procedure may pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. The court need not separately examine the peaceful or orderly nature of the demonstration on the individual facts.

Authorities concerning public-order offences, or offences containing an evaluative defence such as reasonableness, are distinguishable. Convention rights may affect the construction or application of such offences, but that approach does not apply where the offence is simply failure to obtain authorisation.

These were four related appeals by way of case stated from convictions at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court. Stephen Blum and Aqil Shaer were convicted of taking part in an unauthorised demonstration in Parliament Square. Maya Evans was convicted of taking part in, and Milan Rai of organising, an unauthorised demonstration in Whitehall.

The appellants accepted before the Divisional Court that the relevant provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 were compatible with Articles 10 and 11. They argued instead that the police, Crown Prosecution Service and courts had separately to justify arrest, prosecution and conviction by reference to the facts of each demonstration, including its peaceful and orderly character.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court made no order for costs, directed legal aid taxation of the appellants’ costs, refused to certify a point of public importance and refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. Section 132 criminalised organising or taking part in a demonstration in the designated area when authorisation had not been given under section 134(2). The statutory scheme required authorisation, while section 134 permitted the Commissioner to impose conditions directed to specified public-order and safety concerns.
3. The reasoning in Ziliberberg v Moldova supported the conclusion that an authorisation procedure is normally compatible with Article 11(1). If the issue is simply enforcement of that procedure, sanctions pursue the legitimate aim of enforcing authorisation and are necessary in a democratic society. Without sanctions, the power to require authorisation would be illusory.
4. The cases relied on by the appellants, including Ezelin v France, G v The Federal Republic of Germany, Stankov v Bulgaria and Ciraklar v Turkey, concerned conduct during demonstrations, public-order offences or other issues beyond simple failure to obtain authorisation. They did not require a different approach.
5. Percy v DPP, Hammond v DPP and Dehal v CPS were similarly distinguishable. They concerned offences in which the quality or reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct formed part of the statutory analysis. Once the relevant authorisation provisions were accepted as Convention-compliant, it was not legitimate to reopen that question by examining the circumstances of each unauthorised demonstration.

The judgment itself describes four appeals by way of case stated from convictions at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals.