The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors (Rev 1)

A person seeking possession of publicly accessible land need not hold the legal estate. It is sufficient to establish a better right to physical possession, including a right to exclude persons who occupy the land without authority. Public access as visitors is compatible with that right.

Peaceful protest and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 may be restricted where restrictions are prescribed by law, pursue legitimate aims and are proportionate. An indefinite encampment occupying a substantial part of a public garden, causing damage and excluding other users, may lawfully be removed. An injunction supporting criminal byelaws is exceptional but may be granted where prosecution would be ineffective.

The Mayor of London, on behalf of the Greater London Authority, sought possession of Parliament Square Gardens and injunctions against persons occupying or using the Gardens in connection with the Democracy Village protest. Other defendants, including Brian Haw and Barbara Tucker, maintained a long-standing protest nearby and were alleged to have occupied part of the grassed area without permission.

The defendants relied principally on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, together with arguments concerning statutory powers, public access, personal circumstances and the availability of criminal sanctions. The central questions were whether the Mayor had a sufficient right to possession, whether the defendants were trespassers, whether Convention rights provided a defence, and whether injunctive relief was justified.

1. Possession. A claim against trespassers under CPR Part 55 does not require legal title. The claimant must show a better right to possession. Public access to Parliament Square Gardens was access as visitors or licensees, not occupation. The Mayor therefore had a right to exclusive possession as against persons who occupied the Gardens without authority.
2. The statutory scheme, particularly sections 384 and 385 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, read with sections 30 and 34, gave the Greater London Authority and the Mayor effective control, management and regulation of the Gardens. That included the ability to exclude persons who occupied the land and to control demonstrations and events.
3. The Democracy Village defendants were occupying the Gardens without permission and were trespassers. Brian Haw, Barbara Tucker and Charity Sweet had no permission to occupy the grassed area. Charity Sweet and Raga Woods were not shown to be occupiers for the purposes of possession. The claim for possession therefore succeeded against all defendants except those two.
4. Convention rights. The byelaws did not impose a blanket prohibition on protest, assembly or camping. They required written permission and allowed applications to be considered, including urgent applications. The Mayor’s refusal of permission was reasoned and proportionate. The scale and indefinite duration of the encampment, damage to the Gardens, exclusion of visitors and other protestors, health and sanitation concerns, and the need to prevent disorder established a pressing social need. Removal was a proportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11.
5. Personal hardship, homelessness, religious or political conviction, alleged international obligations and asserted common-law or other abstract rights did not provide a defence to possession. The court also rejected the alleged Article 8, 9, 12 and 13 defences.
6. Injunctions. Injunctive relief in support of criminal law was exceptional and required more than a bare breach of the byelaws. It was justified because the occupiers intended to continue, many identities were unknown, service and repeated prosecutions would be burdensome and ineffective, and the defendants had disregarded lawful directions. Injunctions were granted against all defendants except Rebecca Hall and Raga Woods. The possession order applied against all defendants except Charity Sweet and Raga Woods.

First-instance decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.