Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
Unequal chances? Ethnic disproportionality in child welfare and family justice
Many have experienced their own Black Lives Matter moment in the last 12 months, a sharp realisation of entrenched prejudices and inequalities that still exist in our society.In the family justice...
Changes to the law on Domestic Abuse
Official statistics (ONS (2016), March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)) show that around 2 million people suffer from some form of domestic abuse each year in the UK. In...
Managing costs in complex children cases
In November 2020 Spice Girl Mel B was in the news, despairing about how the legal costs of trying to relocate her daughter Madison from the US to England were likely to bankrupt her, leading to her...
View all articles
Authors

CHILDREN ACT: R (Castle) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) [2011] EWHC 2317 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:02 PM
Slug : 2011EWHC2317
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Sep 28, 2011, 11:30 AM
Article ID : 96439

(Queen's Bench Division; Pitchford LJ and Supperstone J; 7 September 2011)
 
The three claimants, two aged 16 and one aged 14 took part in demonstrations in London protesting against the rise in university tuition fees. The police contained the demonstrators for approximately 7 hours. The claimants sought a judicial review, a declaration of unlawfulness of their containment and damages. They claimed a breach of the defendant's duty under s 11 of the Children Act 2004 and that the duration of the detention was excessive and for the unlawful purpose of carrying out searches under s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. They also claimed breaches of Arts 5, 8, 10, 11 of ECHR.  The police had no prior notification that school children would be among the protestors. The decision was made to contain 3-5000 protestors in Whitehall due to increasingly violent behaviour in order to prevent crime and further breach of the peace. The police asked vulnerable people to make themselves known to be released from containment. The police helicopter was sent to scan crowds for young children. The claimants did not participate in criminal activity.

Held that the decision to contain was lawful. The duration was not excessive, as there was a continuing threat of breach of peace. The delay increased by practice of searching those permitted to leave as there was evidence of a large numbers of protestors being armed. There were ongoing attempts to release school children. Interference with ECHR rights for a legitimate reason, in accordance with law and proportionate to legitimate aim of preventing imminent breach of the peace.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from