No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Protest and Public Order
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
“I have considered this situation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but he does not think it necessary to use his power under the Public Order Act 1936 to prohibit the demonstration. He will have a large force of police officers on duty, who will seek to facilitate peaceful demonstration. By using their traditional methods, they will enforce the law and arrest alleged offenders… I have thought carefully about the general issues of freedom and order… My conclusion is that, in the absence of plain evidence of widespread violence, interference with the right to hold meetings, even of this size, would be a bad precedent which would endanger freedom in this country.”
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1970
References
1 Hansard, 24 Oct. 1968 (c. 1598).Google Scholar
2 Ibid.
3 See The Times, 5 Sept. 1968, p. 1Google Scholar (“Militant Plot Feared in London”); but see also, Sunday Times, 8 Sept. 1968, p. 8.Google Scholar
4 See The Times, 28 Oct. 1968, p. 1.Google Scholar
5 Hansard, 22 July 1968 (c. 35).Google Scholar
6 Ibid.
7 Hansard (N. Ireland), Vol. 72, cc. 32–33 (4 March 1969). See The Times, 17 Jan. 1969, p. 9.Google Scholar
8 Vol. 73, c. 1345 (5 June 1969), Mr. F. V. Simpson.
9 On the law of public order in Northern Ireland, see Calvert, Harry, Constitutional Law in Northern Ireland (1968)Google Scholar, Chap. 20.
10 Vol. 72, c. 36, 4 March 1969. See also The Review of the International Commission of Jurists for June 1969 at pp. 14–19 in a comment headed “Human Rights in Northern Ireland”; The Times, 1 July 1969, p. 3Google Scholar (reporting a Quaker study called “Orange and Green”).
11 These include Walter Lord, The Past That Would not Die (1966), an account of the riot which followed the enrolment of James Meredith in the University of Mississippi; Ben W. Gilbert and others, Ten Blocks from the White House (1968), an account of the Washington riots of 1968.
12 Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Bantam Book edition, paperback, 1968).
13 Rights in Conflict—the Violent Confrontation of Demonstrators and Police in the Parks and Streets of Chicago during the week of the Democratic National Convention of 1968 (a Report submitted by Daniel Walker, Director of the Chicago Study Team, to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence) (Bantam edition, 1968). Other Reports to the Commission, published by Bantam Books in 1969, are The History of Violence in America (a Report submitted to the National Commission by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr) and Shoot-Out in Cleveland (a Report submitted to the National Commission by the Civil Violence Research Center, Case Western Reserve University). The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders under Governor Otto Kerner had been appointed by President Johnson on 27 July 1967; the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence was formed on 10 June 1968, soon after Senator Kennedy's assassination. The National Commission finally completed its work in December 1969: it produced nine reports. Its chairman was Dr. Milton Eisenhower.
14 p. 483 (Bantam ed.).
15 p. xv.
16 p. xvi. The National Commission also received a report from the Miami Study Team upon the violence in the Negro sections of Miami during the Republican Convention in 1968 (see The Times, 13 Feb. 1969, p. 7)Google Scholar.
17 The Times, 28 August 1969, pp. 2Google Scholar and 7. See Janowitz, Morris, Social Control of Escalated Riots (pamphlet, Univ. of Chicago Center for Policy Study, 1968).Google Scholar
18 The Guardian. 24 Oct. 1967, p. 8.Google Scholar
19 The Times, 5 Sept. 1968, p. 9.Google Scholar See also Sunday Telegraph, 19 Jan. 1969, p. 16Google Scholar; The Times, 19 March 1968, p. 9Google Scholar, and 28 Oct. 1968, p. 9; The Guardian, 25 Oct 1968, p. 12Google Scholar (all leading articles).
20 Hansard (House of Lords), 12 Feb. 1969Google Scholar (“Violence in Contemporary Society”); Hansard (House of Commons), 24 Feb. 1969Google Scholar (“Law and Order”).
21 Hansard, 4th ser., Vol. 80, c. 929 (15 March 1900).
22 Id., c. 957, 15 March 1900. See also the remarks of Sir M. White Ridley (the Home Secretary) at c. 950: “Whatever may be said about free speech, and no one favours it more strongly than I do, there are times when men's feelings are strongly excited, and when allowance ought to be made for it, and those who are calling these public meetings ought to feel that they have some responsibility cast upon them, and that they ought to be very careful not to endanger the public peace.” For contrary views, see Sir William Harcourt (at cc. 954–955), C. P. Scott (at c. 91) and especially Sir R. T. Reid (at c. 940 et seq).
23 O'neill, William L., The Woman Movement: Feminism in the United States and England (Allen and Unwin, 1969)Google Scholar; Benewick, Robert, Political Violence and Public Order (Allen Lane, 1969).Google Scholar For an account of the Trafalgar Square troubles of the early 1960s associated with movements for nuclear disarmament see The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. III 1944–1967 (Allen and Unwin, 1969). The public order problems of the 1930s are also discussed in Sir Mosley, Oswald, My Life (Nelson, 1968).Google Scholar
24 See L. Radzinowicz, “New Departures in Maintaining Public Order in the Face of Chartist Disturbances” [1960] C.L.J. 51.
25 12 Feb. 1886, p. 3.
26 Hansard, 4th ser., Vol. 18, c. 881 et seq. (14 Nov. 1893).
27 The Times, 10 Jan. 1969, p. 6Google Scholar; 14 Sept. 1968, p. 8, and 12 Sept. 1968, p. 9.
28 Hansard (N. Ireland), Vol. 72, c. 1635 (24 April 1969), Mr. J. A. Currie. See also id., c. 846, cc. 859–860 (2 April 1969), Mr. John Hume.
29 See, e.g., Ryde Corporation Act 1969, Pt. 2; City of London (Various Powers) Act 1967, s. 12; Lancashire C.C. (General Powers) Act 1968, s. 44; Port of London Act 1968, ss. 161–162.
30 See also Ryde Corporation Act 1969, s. 23; Newcastle upon Tyne Corporation Act 1968, s. 83; Cheshire C.C. Act 1968, s. 102; Durham C.C. Act 1968, s. 102; Hounslow Corporation Act 1968, s. 61; Lancashire C.C. (General Powers) Act 1968, s. 58.
31 e.g., Public Order Act 1936, ss. 1 and 2; Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934; Race Relations Act 1965, s. 6.
32 See The Times, 10 Dec. 1968, p. 3.Google Scholar
33 The Times, 4 Oct. 1967, p. 3Google Scholar; 5 Oct. 1967, p. 3.
34 Times L.R. for 8 Nov. in The Times, 9 Nov. 1967, p. 4.Google Scholar
35 See Anthony Dickey, “Prosecution under the Race Relations Act 1965, s. 6 (Incitement to Racial Hatred)” [1968] Crim.L.R. 489. There have been requests to the Attorney-General from time to time asking him to institute or authorise proceedings under s. 6: see The Times, 6 March 1967, p. 2Google Scholar; 3 May 1968, p. 1.
36 R. v. Malik [1968] 1 All E.R. 582, 585 (Note).
37 R. v. Jordan and Tyndall [1963] Crim.L.R. 124. See The Times for 1962: 11 August, p. 6Google Scholar; 28 August, p. 5; 3 Oct., p. 5; 4 Oct., p. 4; 5 Oct., p. 7; 10 Oct., p. 8; 11 Oct., p. 17; 12 Oct., p. 8; 13 Oct., p. 5; 16 Oct., p. 7; Law Report for 9 Nov. See George Thayer, The British Political Fringe (1965), Chap. 1.
38 Hansard, Vol. 317, c. 1355 (16 Nov. 1936).Google Scholar
39 Hansard, 8 April 1968 (c. 892–94).Google Scholar
40 See The Times, 27 Feb. 1969, p. 1Google Scholar; Carmarthen Journal, 28 Feb, 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
41 The Times, 7 March 1969, p. 4Google Scholar; 13 March, p. 3.
42 The Times, 17 April 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar This might be compared with the comment of a judge in 1723 who said that it “was very difficult to have justice done in Wales by a jury of Welshmen, for they are all related to one another, and therefore would rather acquit a criminal than have the scandal that one of their name or relations should be hanged; and that to try a man in Wales for murder was like trying a man in Scotland for high treason, those being crimes not much regarded in those respective places” (R. v. Athos (1723) 88 E.R. 104).
43 The Times, 26 June 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar
44 The Times, 2 July 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar
45 See Williams, Keeping the Peace (Hutchinson, 1967), pp. 94–96.
46 See D. G. T. Williams, “Suspended Sentence at Common Law” [1963] Pub. Law 441. The common law bind over is available only in courts which try cases on indictment (and in cases of criminal contempt of court).
47 An example of the use of a suspended sentence in the area of public order appears in The Times, 4 Feb. 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar After a demonstration in Oxford, a student was given a 3-month suspended sentence in addition to a fine of £50. For a criticism of the way in which suspended sentences do not always give the public the protection for which they were designed, see the comments of the Recorder of Oxford quoted in The Times, 15 Oct. 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar
48 The Times, 2 July 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar
49 The Times, 4 Feb. 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar See also Daily Telegraph, 24 May 1969, p. 16.Google Scholar
50 See The Times, 9 Nov. 1968, p. 8.Google Scholar
51 The Times, 5 Nov. 1968, p. 2.Google Scholar
52 The Times, 19 Dec. 1968, p. 2.Google Scholar She was finally released with a 7-day remission— The Times, 18 April 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar
53 Sunday Times, 6 April 1969, p. 10Google Scholar: “How to get jailed without really trying.” Mr. Rolph argues that conditional or absolute discharges would be more appropriate in many of the cases where binding-over orders are used.
54 Sunday Times, 27 July 1969, p. 12Google Scholar (the article spoke of 1360 not 1361).
55 See The Times, 23 July 1969, p. 8Google Scholar (“Call to abolish bind-over powers”); The Observer, 27 July 1969, p. 6Google Scholar (Louis Blom-Cooper on “Misusing a Giant's Strength”). In December 1969 the National Council for Civil Liberties announced that they had recommended to the Home Secretary that the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 should be abolished; abolition, they claimed, “would remove a major source of injustice and a serious threat to freedom of speech and assembly.” See The Times, 15 Dec. 1969, p. 2Google Scholar; Monthly Bulletin of N.C.C.L., December 1969.
56 The Times, 23 July 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar See also The Times, 21 July 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar
57 The Times, 2 August 1969, p. 3Google Scholar; The Guardian, 1 August 1969, p. 4.Google Scholar
58 The Times, 21 July 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar
59 [1969] 1 W.L.R. 872, 873–874, per Lord Parker C.J.
60 Id. at 874.
61 Id. at 874, 875.
62 See, e.g., The Times, 6 Nov. 1968, p. 4Google Scholar; 12 March 1969, p. 2.
63 The Guardian, 12 August 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar He was conditionally discharged.
64 The Times, 31 May 1969, p. 4.Google Scholar
65 The Times, 17 Sept. 1968, p. 4.Google Scholar
66 R. v. Nava, Times L.R. for 20 Jan. 1967.
67 Hansard, 20 January 1969Google Scholar, c. 45. See also Hansard, 22 July 1969, cc. 35–36.Google Scholar
68 The Times, 16 Nov. 1968, p. 2.Google Scholar Heavy sentences have also been imposed after incidents at football matches: see The Times, 26 Sept. 1967, p. 3Google Scholar; 8 Nov. 1967, p. 4.
69 The Times, 26 Feb. 1969, p. 6.Google Scholar
70 The Times, 21 May 1968, p. 2.Google Scholar
71 The Times, 17 April 1968, p. 5.Google Scholar See also The Times, 29 Nov. 1967, p. 2Google Scholar; 23 July 1968, p. 5: 11 July 1969, p. 2; Daily Telegraph, 8 Feb.
72 The Guardian, 7 August 1969, p. 14.Google Scholar See also The Times, 20 August 1968, p. 2Google Scholar; 31 Oct. 1967, p. 4.
73 e.g., The Guardian, 6 August 1969, p. 5Google Scholar; The Times, 31 August 1966, p. 8Google Scholar; 18 Sept. 1969, p. 3; The Guardian, 1 Oct. 1969, p. 9.Google Scholar
74 See, e.g., The Times, 20 Nov. 1967, p. 3Google Scholar; 3 Nov. 1967, p. 3; 20 June 1969, p. 13.
75 Charges of insulting behaviour have been brought against a man who threw water over people in Trafalgar Square on Guy Fawkes night in 1968 (The Times, 7 Nov. 1968, p. 4Google Scholar) and against a man who took his clothes off in the Trafalgar Square fountains on Guy Fawkes night in 1967 (The Times, 7 Nov. 1967, p. 4Google Scholar). Fines for using insulting words were imposed on some people who admitted shouting during the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Cenotaph on Sunday, 9 Nov. 1969: see The Times, 11 Nov. 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar A police inspector said in court that the defendants had to be arrested for their own protection.
76 [1963] 2 Q.B. 744. For a recent case involving a charge of insulting words and behaviour in the context of racial problems, see The Times, 3 Dec. 1969, p. 3.Google Scholar A man who was convicted of insulting words by shouting pro-Mao slogans in an angry crowd outside the Chinese legation in August 1967 was fined 20s. and bound over in the sum of £100 for 12 months— see The Times, 29 Sept. 1967, p. 2.Google Scholar
77 s. 3D of Police Offences Act 1927.
78 [1967] N.Z.L.R. 391, esp. 391–392.
79 [1967] N.Z.L.R. 437, esp. 439, 445. See P. E. Kilbride and P. T. Burns, “Freedom of Movement and Assembly” (1966) 2 N.Z.U.L.R. 1 for a discussion of the law of public order in New Zealand. The Australian law relating to public order is discussed in “Protest and the Law,” written by an academic lawyer at a Victorian University in Current Affairs Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 9, 22 Sept. 1969Google Scholar (published by the Dept. of Adult Ed. in the University of Sydney).
80 Hansard, 8 April 1968.Google Scholar At that date, 174 of the accused had been fined, 8 conditionally discharged, 2 bound over and 18 had had the charges against them dismissed. Thirty-seven cases remained to be heard. A man who, in November 1969, threw a lead weight through a window of 10 Downing Street as a protest was convicted of malicious damage and conditionally discharged: The Times, 14 Nov. 1969, p. 3Google Scholar; 28 Nov., p. 3.
81 A surprising range of offences is provided for in these particular Regulations.
82 See the Specimen Set of “Good Rule and Government” By-laws set out in Yardley, D. C. M., A Source Books of Administrative Law (Butterworths, 1963) at 13–17.Google Scholar
83 The Times, 9 May 1968, p. 4Google Scholar; 24 May 1969, p. 3. The working party, which was under the chairmanship of Sir John Lang (vice-chairman of the Sports Council) finally reported in December 1969: Report of the Working Party on Crowd Behaviour at Football Matches, H.M.S.O. 1969 (published 18 Dec.). It made several important proposals for meeting hooliganism at football matches.
84 Daily Telegraph, 23 May 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
85 See the report headed “Violence is all part of the game now” in The Times, 7 Oct. 1968, p. 8.Google Scholar
86 See , Williams, Keeping the Peace (Hutchinson, 1967), pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
87 See the report on vandalism in The Times, 8 April 1969, p. 8.Google Scholar
88 See The Times, 6 August 1969, p. 2Google Scholar; The Guardian, 7 August 1969, p. 4.Google Scholar
89 R. v. Coe [1969] 1 All E.R. 65, 67.
90 For a useful summary of the main events in Ulster from Feb. 1967 to July 1969, see The Times, 4 August 1969, p. 4Google Scholar (“Timetable of 18 months' tension in troubled Ulster”).
91 The Times, 28 April 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
92 Daily Telegraph, 19 May 1969, p. 24.Google Scholar
93 The Times, 6 Jan. 1969, p. 1Google Scholar (Capt. O'Neill).
94 The Times, 20 August 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
95 The Times, 23 August 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar For an account of the origin and organisation of the B specials, see Hanna, Vincent, “Ulster's Army,” The Guardian, 23 August 1969, p. 9.Google Scholar
96 Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Origin and Character of the Riots in Belfast in July and September 1857 (Dublin, 1858).
97 C. 4925 of 1887. See also the Report by one of the Commissioners, C. 5029 of 1887.
98 C. 4925, p. 16.
99 Id. p. 17.
99a Id. p. 22.
1 Id. p. 19.
2 Disturbances in Northern Ireland, Cmd. 532 (H.M.S.O., Belfast), Sept. 1969.Google Scholar See also A Commentary by the Government of Northern Ireland to accompany the Cameron Report, Cmd. 534. The Hunt Committee reported in the following month: Report of the Advisory Committee on Police in Northern Ireland, Cmd. 535 (Oct. 1969), followed by a white paper of the Northern Ireland Government called “Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve,” Cmd. 536 (Nov. 1969).
3 Burntollet, by Bowes Egan and Vincent McCormack (L.R.S. Publishers, 1969).
4 See Chap. 15 of the Cameron Report. For an account of some of the groups involved in the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, see Boyd, Andrew, “Ulster: Violence and Civil Rights,” New Statesman, 8 August 1969, p. 168.Google Scholar
5 See Rolph, C. H., “Police and Demonstrators,” New Statesman, 3 Nov. 1967, p. 585Google Scholar; Monthly Bulletin of N.C.C.L. (July 1969); The Guardian, 8 August 1969, p. 7Google Scholar; Sunday Times, 31 August 1969. p. 5Google Scholar; Fowler, Norman, “Police and Complaints,” The Times, 11 August 1969, p. 6.Google Scholar See also letters by Mr. Eldon Griffiths M.P. (Parliamentary Adviser to the Police Federation) and Mr. F. Drayton-Porter (Chief Constable of the Mid-Anglia Constabulary) in The Times, 26 August 1969, p. 7Google Scholar, and 13 August 1969, p. 9, respectively.
6 Cmnd. 1728 of 1962, Chap. ix, esp. paras. 477–478.
7 para. 479.
8 “The Citizen and the Administration” (a Justice Report), 1961, para. 162.
9 The Times, 9 Sept. 1968, p. 7Google Scholar (leading article).
10 Hansard, 18 March 1968.Google Scholar
11 Hansard, 22 July 1968, c. 35.Google Scholar
12 Hansard, 20 January 1969, c. 45.Google Scholar
13 Hansard, 13 Feb. 1969Google Scholar, c. 1548. See also House of Lords, 18 Feb. 1969, c. 812.
14 Hansard, 13 Feb. 1969Google Scholar, cc. 1548–1549.
15 Hansard, 13 Feb. 1969Google Scholar, c. 1543.
16 House of Commons (N. Ireland), Vol. 72, c. 1069 (2 April 1969). See esp. the adjournment debate on the Londonderry disturbances, id., c. 1270 et seq. (22 April 1969).
17 Walker Report, p. 111.
18 See letters of The Times, 20 March 1968, p. 11Google Scholar, on the Grosvenor Square demonstration of 17 March 1968; see also The Times, 19 March, p. 8Google Scholar, and 21 March, p. 11.
19 “Television's effect on the news it shows,” The Times, 7 March 1969, p. 11.Google Scholar
20 The Times, 8 Oct. 1968, p. 9.Google Scholar
21 See letters in The Times, 30 Oct. 1969, p. 9.Google Scholar
22 p. 8.
23 House of Lords, 12 Feb. 1969, c. 449.
24 Kerner Report, p. 368 et seq.
25 pp. 372–373.
26 See the Walker Report, at 287 et seq.
27 p. 304.
28 The Times, 25 June 1968, p. 7.Google Scholar
29 See Williams, Keeping the Peace (1967) at 142 et seq.
30 See, e.g., Robson v. Hallett [1967] 2 All E.R. 407Google Scholar (breach of the peace had occurred); McGowan v. Chief Constable of Kingston-upon-Hull [1968]Google Scholar Crim. L.R. 34 (anticipation of breach of the peace).
31 The Times, 23 Jan. 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
32 The Times, 24 Oct. 1967, p. 1.Google Scholar
33 The Times, 23 April 1969, p. 2.Google Scholar
34 The Times, 29 April 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
35 The Times, 8 May 1968, p. 5.Google Scholar
36 The Times, 20 May 1966, p. 14.Google Scholar
37 The Times, 25 January 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar
38 See generally The Hornsey Affair, by students and staff of the Hornsey College of Art (Penguin, 1969); Kidd, Harry, The Trouble at L.S.E. 1966–1967 (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar; Beloff, Michael, “The L.S.E. Story,” Encounter, May 1969, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar
39 See The Observer, 16 Nov. 1969, p. 1Google Scholar; The Times, 17 Nov. 1969, p. 10Google Scholar; Tribune, 21 Nov. 1969.Google Scholar
40 Hansard, 17 Nov. 1969.Google Scholar
41 The Times, 25 Nov. 1969, p. 1.Google Scholar See leading articles in The Times, 17 Nov. 1969, p. 11Google Scholar (“Never mind the game”); 2 Dec. 1969, p. 11 (“Demos and Disorder”); 8 Dec. 1969, p. 9 (“The price of protest”). It was announced in the House of Commons on 18 Dec. 1969 by the Home Secretary that, up to that date, 68 policemen in England and Wales had been injured at demonstrations against the South African tour and that the total additional cost to public funds of police duty undertaken came to £25,000.
42 Another recent problem has been that of “squatters” in vacant premises. For the events surrounding the occupation of No. 144, Piccadilly, see The Times, 16 Sept. 1969, p. 2Google Scholar; 20 Sept., p. 1; 22 Sept., pp. 1, 9; 26 Sept., p. 4. See Rolph, C. H., “Squatters' Law,” New Statesman, 26 Sept. 1969, p. 402.Google Scholar