Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 71 (Nov)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Judge:

Maurice Kay LJ and Penry-Davey J

Representation Daniel Pievsky (instructed by Public Interest Solicitors) for the claimants.
  Samantha Leek (instructed by the Force Solicitor, Birmingham) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 4 November 2005

Catchwords

Police - Powers - Anti-social behaviour - Authorised dispersal - Protest - Dispersal direction given for purpose other than that for which authorisation granted - Whether power to disperse applying to protests - Whether direction unlawful - , s 30.

The Case

Section30 of the did, by necessary implication, apply to protests. There was no reason why a dispersal direction under s30(4) could not be issued for a purpose other than that for which the relevant authorisation order under s30(1) had been made, particularly as issuance of the direction was subject to the constraints in s30(3), the requirements of proportionality and other normal public law criteria.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.