Hall & Ors v Mayor of London (On Behalf of the Greater London Authority)

A public authority entrusted by statute with the complete control, management and regulation of public land may have an implied right to recover possession in its own name, although bare legal title is vested elsewhere.

Political expression and assembly protect the manner and location of protest, including an encampment. The court must nevertheless determine proportionality by balancing those freedoms against public access, competing demonstrations, health, prevention of crime and proper management of the land. A long-term, effectively exclusive occupation may therefore be removed. An injunction may supplement criminal byelaw enforcement where the statutory penalties would provide no effective deterrent.

The Mayor obtained possession of Parliament Square Gardens and an injunction requiring participants in the Democracy Village protest camp to remove structures, cease specified activities and leave. The High Court orders were made by Griffith Williams J in [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB).

The appellants challenged the fairness and speed of the trial, the Mayor’s standing to claim possession, the compatibility of the orders with articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the use of an injunction alongside criminal byelaws. Brian Haw, whose separate and longstanding demonstration occupied an adjoining pavement and a small part of the Gardens, also argued that his individual circumstances had not received a distinct proportionality assessment. Costs orders were separately challenged.

1. Disposition. Permission and the appeal were granted for Brian Haw, Barbara Tucker and Maria Sweet on the proportionality issue. That issue was remitted to the High Court for an expedited rehearing. Permission was otherwise refused on the substantive issues. The possession order against the other defendants was to exclude the area occupied by Haw’s tent. The costs appeals were allowed in part.
2. The expedited trial was fair. Possession claims against trespassers properly use the abbreviated procedure in CPR Part 55, and justified injunctive relief should be available promptly. The defendants had adequate opportunities to present the relevant law, evidence and arguments, and the short timetable caused no demonstrated prejudice to the Democracy Village defendants.
3. Sections 384 and 385 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 implicitly authorised the Mayor to claim possession in his own name. Section 384(1) vested bare title in the Crown, but the statutory scheme conferred complete control, management and regulation on the Mayor. Those functions included the right and duty to enforce possession. Parliament could not sensibly have intended the Mayor to depend upon a discretionary relator action by the Attorney General.
4. Articles 10 and 11 protected the protesters’ choice of location and manner of protest, including a relatively long-term encampment. The court itself had to decide proportionality and scrutinise sharply the reasons for restricting political speech and assembly. The Democracy Village’s removal was proportionate. Its prolonged and effectively exclusive occupation interfered with public access, other demonstrations and the Mayor’s management duties, while also raising health, criminal-damage and environmental concerns. The orders did not prohibit the appellants from expressing their views or holding future lawful demonstrations.
5. The injunction was permissible despite the criminal sanction in section 385(3). It supported the Mayor’s possessory rights and was also justified exceptionally in aid of the byelaws. The judge was entitled to find that prosecutions and level 1 fines would not deter continued breaches and that identifying, serving and prosecuting changing occupiers would impose an undue burden.
6. Haw’s circumstances required separate examination. His protest was distinct and longstanding, occupied only a small grassed area, had not displaced other users, and raised medical evidence about whether he could sleep on the pavement. The absence of findings and a reasoned, individual proportionality assessment required remittal, although the Court expressed substantial doubt about the ultimate strength of his claim.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2010] EWCA Civ 817 , allowed the appeals concerning the individual proportionality assessment for Brian Haw, Barbara Tucker and Maria Sweet, and remitted that issue for expedited rehearing. It otherwise refused permission on the substantive grounds and allowed the costs appeals in part.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Griffith Williams J, in [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) , ordered possession of Parliament Square Gardens and granted injunctions against most defendants.