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
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
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