Tucker v Director of Public Prosecutions

Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 require prior permission for demonstrations in designated areas, including Parliament Square. A demonstration without that permission may constitute the offence created by section 132. The provisions should not be read down under sections 3 and 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where their compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 has already been considered and upheld. A criminal costs order should ordinarily be supported by evidence of the defendant’s means.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of District Judge Nicholas Evans at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 22 February 2006. She had been convicted of carrying on an unauthorised demonstration by herself in Parliament Square, contrary to section 132(1)(c) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The district judge fined her £100, ordered her to pay £100 costs and forfeited her banner.

The appeal raised whether the conviction was lawful under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, whether section 132(1)(c) was compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, and whether it could be read compatibly under section 3.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The district judge had been entitled to convict the claimant of carrying on an unauthorised demonstration in a designated area without permission.
2. The court followed its decision in Blum and Others v Director of Public Prosecution [2006] EWHC 3209 (Admin). That decision had concluded that the offence applied where permission had not been obtained from the Commissioner. The same issue arose in the present case.
3. The court noted that Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931 (Admin) had also recorded the failure of a general challenge to sections 132 to 138. The court saw no basis for distinguishing Blum and Others v Director of Public Prosecution or for treating the concession made in that case as wrongly made. The relevant Convention arguments therefore provided no basis for reading down section 132(1)(c).
4. The court answered the district judge’s questions by confirming that his conclusion was correct. The conviction was consequently lawful.
5. Although the court stated that criminal costs orders should not be made without evidence that the defendant could pay, it inferred from the magistrates’ earlier £100 costs order and fine that the claimant had sufficient means. It ordered her to pay £200 towards the defendant’s costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by case stated dismissed; the conviction and the district judge’s conclusion were upheld. The court ordered £200 costs against the claimant.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Nicholas Evans convicted the claimant, imposed a £100 fine, ordered £100 costs and forfeited the banner.