Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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