Jukes & Anor v Director of Public Prosecutions

Conditions imposed under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 attach to the particular public procession identified in the direction. They do not regulate participation in another procession or in a public assembly. A person may leave the procession at any time. However, a person who remains a participant cannot avoid a route condition merely by intending to join a different demonstration. Whether the person remains part of the procession depends primarily on their conduct, although intention may assist in characterising that conduct. Participation in a separate assembly is not itself a breach of section 12 conditions. A direction is not invalid merely because it repeats or supplements the specified route, and there is no statutory requirement to serve the notice on a particular person.

The appellants took part in a procession against education cuts on 9 November 2011. Written conditions imposed under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 required participants to remain on an agreed route. At a police cordon near Trafalgar Square, the appellants left the route and joined an Occupy assembly. They had been warned that they might be arrested if they breached the route condition.

The District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court convicted them under section 12(5) and imposed conditional discharges. On an appeal by way of case stated, the Divisional Court considered whether the conditions continued to apply when participants left the route intending to join another demonstration, whether the notice was valid, and whether the appellants’ passage through the cordon affected their liability.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered all three questions in the case stated affirmatively. The convictions were upheld.
2. Conditions under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 relate to the particular public procession identified by the direction. The statutory references to the circumstances, route and scene demonstrate that the conditions cannot apply to a different procession. Nor can section 12 conditions regulate a public assembly, for which section 14 makes separate provision.
3. The appellants were entitled to leave the procession. If they had ceased participating, the route conditions would no longer have applied. The same consequence follows where they leave for a purpose other than going home. The issue is therefore whether, at the time of departure, they were still taking part in the specified procession.
4. That question is determined by the participants’ actions, rather than by their intention alone. Intention may nevertheless assist the court in drawing inferences and characterising the conduct. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellants remained participants when they left the agreed route and crossed into Trafalgar Square. Their earlier deviation constituted the offence, although their later participation in the Occupy assembly did not.
5. The route conditions were not vague or inconsistent. Repetition of the route requirement and additional prohibitions reinforced the warning and did not invalidate the notice. Section 12(3) required the direction to be given in writing, but imposed no requirement for service on any particular person.
6. The police sergeant had no power to waive the conditions. He was entitled, however, to allow participants who wished to quit the procession to leave it. Permitting passage through the cordon did not waive the conditions and did not prevent liability for a breach committed while the appellants remained participants.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed; the Divisional Court answered the questions concerning validity of the notice and liability under section 12(5) affirmatively.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge convicted the appellants under section 12(5) of the Public Order Act 1986 and imposed conditional discharges.