vi. The parties' Convention rights vi. The parties’ Convention rights
23. The right to engage in public protest is, of course, protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). However, these rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are qualified. Under Articles 10(2) and 11(2), they may be subject to restrictions "as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of ... public safety,for the prevention of disorder or crime, ...for the protection of the reputation or rights of others." In determining the necessity of a restriction in a democratic society, the court "must assess the proportionality of the interference with the aim pursued" (Cuadrilla Bowland Limited & Ors v Persons Unknown [2020] 4 WLR 29, §41 [AB/105]). 24. The Court of Appeal stated in Ineos that "[t]he citizen's right of protest is not to be diminished by advancefear of committal except in the clearest of cases, of which trespass is perhaps the best example" (§42) [AB/67]. Indeed, the object of the law of trespass "is to protect property rights in accordance with [Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR]" ("A1P1") (DPP v Cuciurean [2022] QB 888, §46 [AB/127]). The court must balance the Applicant's Convention rights with those of the Respondents. 25. There is also an important distinction "between protests which cause disruption as an inevitable side-effect and protests which are deliberately intended to cause disruption, for example by impeding activities of which the protesters disapprove" (Cuadrilla §§42-43 [AB/105]). Deliberately disruptive protests are not at the core of the Article 11 freedoms (although they may fall within its scope), and restrictions in respect of such protests "may much more readily be justified" (Cuadrilla §§43-447 [AB/105]). 25. There is also an important distinction “ between protests which cause disruption as an example by impeding activities of which the protesters disapprove” ( Cuadrilla §§42-43 [AB/105] ). Deliberately disruptive protests are not at the core of the Article 11 protests “ may much more readily be justified ” ( Cuadrilla §§43-44 7 [AB/105] ). the European Convention on Human Rights (“ ECHR ”). However, these rights to 11(2), they may be subject to restrictions “ as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of … public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, … for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.” In determining the necessity of a restriction in a democratic society , the court “ must assess the proportionality of the interference with the aim pursued” ( Cuadrilla Bowland Limited & Ors v Persons Unknown [2020] 4 WLR 29, §41 [AB/105] ). 24. The Court of Appeal stated in Ineos that “ [t]he citizen's right of protest is not to be perhaps the best example ” (§42) [AB/67] . Indeed, the object of the law of trespass “ is to protect property rights in accordance with [Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR]” (“ A1P1 ”) ( DPP v Cuciurean [2022] QB 888, §46 [AB/127] ). The court must balance the Applicant’s Convention rights with those of the Respondents.
C.
THE ORDER SOUGHT
26. The Applicant seeks the minimum restrictions necessary to ensure that the races on 2 and 3 June can go ahead safely. The terms at subparagraphs 2(1)-(5) of the draft
7 Citing the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and particularly, Kudrevidus v Lithuania (2016) 62 E.H.R.R. 34, §97. Citing the Strasbourg jurisprudence, and particularly, (2016) 62 E.H.R.R. 34, §97. 47 8 28
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator