School of Law

MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY
PUBLIC LAW LAW1106/2202
SUMMATIVE COURSEWORK (first sit)
FORMATIVE DEADLINE: 11 March 2024, 4pm UK time
SUMMATIVE DEADLINE: 18 April 2024, 4pm UK time
Academic Year 2023/2024
Module Leader: Bethany Shiner

Essay about

Balancing Act: The Right to Freedom of Assembly and UK Public Order

Legislation

Around 1500 words for Answer to question 2

Prepared By

ID
Introduction

There is a tradition of democracy in Britain which has an unshakable belief in

the importance of this right to humankind. The right is central for exchange of
collective ideas and maintenance of public speech; it even makes possible
public scrutiny. In the UK, this right is safeguarded and promoted by a host of
laws and pacts with other countries-proving the commitment to universal
democratic principles and human rights shared by all British people. Of these,
the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights are
two major legal frameworks that protect the right to assembly. This paper seeks
to analyse how far Britain's public order law respects people's right to assemble
and discuss critically. It touches on such issues as the balance of interests
between maintaining public order and elaborating on what has become an
undoubted aspect of British democracy.

The Right to Freedom of Assembly in the UK

In the United Kingdom, our legal structure is firmly supportive of freedom of

assembly, with the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 11 being the most prominent
example. This refers to European Convention on Human Rights in domestic
law. This article clearly makes provision to protect the right of peaceful
assembly, subject only to those restrictions considered necessary in a
democratic society: national security interests, public safety or the prevention of
disorder and crime. The importance of this right in a democratic society cannot
be overstressed; it allows people to collectively present, support, discuss and
defend ideas. It is a cornerstone of democratic involvement, giving ordinary
citizens an unmediated means for participating directly in politics and enabling
them to express public approval or dissent on different questions.2

However, the application of this right is not without limitations. The Public
Order Act 1986, for example, lays down certain restrictions especially regarding
marches and assemblies, requiring the organizers to give advance notice and
comply with any conditions that the police think necessary to avoid serious
1
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 11.
2
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 11(2).
public disorder, serious damage occur to property, serious disruption of the life
of the community, or because someone else might be frightened.^ 3 These
provisions reflect the state's duty to weigh carefully people's freedom of
assembly with the need for ensuring public safety and order. The subsequent
parts of this essay will explore in greater detail how this balance is managed
within England's legal system and what implications it might have both for the
right of freedom of assembly and more widely.

Public Order Legislation in the UK

The United Kingdom has established a comprehensive legal framework for

guiding public assemblies, processions, and demonstrations that strikes a
balance between the people's right to freedom of assembly in a democracy and
the public interest to preserve order. The cornerstone of this framework is the
Public Order Act 1986.^4This law specifies requirements which must be
fulfilled by organizers of processions or other assemblies that are in public
places. Notifying the police in advance about intentions to hold an event on the
streets. With up to six weeks' notice up to two. Where a public assembly or
culture in a procession could result in serious public disorder, significant
damage being done to property or serious unrest affecting the life flourishing
across our community and we are requested by an organiser to do so then this
Act will lean heavily in favor of leaving it out before they start.^ 5 The most
recent enactment, the Police, Crime and Courts Act 2022, has added new
requirements which provide police with expanded powers to control non-violent
protests that cause serious disruption in public places or stop people accessing
the Parliament building.^6These laws play an integral role in establishing the
legal framework for public assemblies to be conducted within. That in turn
reflects and embodies the state's policy of balancing individual rights with
collective security and order. Critical Analysis

Case Studies and Legal Challenges

Controversy is rife in this peculiar area. R (on the application of Miller) v The
Prime Minister illustrates how judgements and criticisms of democracy make
themselves heard even among judges, although not directly linked to public

3
Public Order Act 1986, sections 11-14.
4
Public Order Act 1986, s 11.
5
Ibid., s 12.
6
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, Part 3.
assemblies, finally ends up casting light on the judicial system's role in sorting
out dispute over democratic rights. ^ 7In the context of public assemblies, the
DPP v Ziegler and Others case holds significant implications. In this important
decision the UK Supreme Court ruled "lock-on" tactics to protect the right of
protesters as revelatory performance and assembly, as long it was reasonable
not only permissible for demonstrers but also required for their security.^ 8This
judgment has become a central point of reference for those determining whether
or not police actions to restrict gatherings are lawfully defensible and how such
actions infringe on fundamental rights.

These cases demonstrate how public order laws affect the right of assembly.
They highlight the pivotal role of legislations in shaping the law toward a
position that bona fide balances state interest with respect to public order and
individual rights guaranteed domestically, internationally or both. The outcome
of these court actions will have important consequences for the future of public
assembly and protest in the UK. In theory they could set precedents telling us
how similar actions would be judged or managed.

Balancing Rights and Public Order

The age-old legal and ethical challenge is bridging individual rights with the
need to maintain public security. The Public Order Act 1986 and Police, Crime,
Sentencing & Courts Act 2022 are attempts from a legal standpoint at finding
this balance: they restrict protests designed to cause public disorder.^ 9 Ethically,
this balance delves into fundamental democratic principles of freedom of speech
and meeting against the collective right to peace and security. Law enforcement
agencies argue that restrictions are necessary to prevent chaos and protect
people,^10 whereas human rights groups often see them as disproportionate and
potentially curbing democratic engagement. Public opinion varies on this
balance, reflecting wider society debates as to what is more important: security
or freedom?

To judge if existing legislation does strike a fair balance is not easy. While the
legal framework provides machinery for managing public demonstrations, its

7
R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister* [2019] UKSC 41.
8
*DPP v Ziegler and Others* [2021] UKSC 23.
9
Public Order Act 1986.
10
*Policing and Crime Bill: Briefing for Lords Stages*. House of Lords Library, 2016.
critics argue that too much discretion is given to police, potentially unduly
curtailing the right of peaceful assembly.

Contemporary Problems and Debates

Recent events - such as the widespread protests following controversial

legislative proposals - have revived the debate on the right to freedom of
assembly and public order legislation. These debates encapsulate broader
concerns in society about civil liberties facing expanding State power, reflecting
a worldwide trend of questioning how far government control over individual
freedoms can go.

Conclusion

The article you have read discusses how to balance respecting right to assembly
and public order maintenance within UK legal framework. From analyzing
preceding statements, however, it looks like terrible legislation always winds up
sparking debate about if it is really preventing violence from the viewpoint of
both individual human rights and public order or in fact eliminating freedom
This said, the country's public order legislation is probably harmless, yet it
would seem fitting to undertake reform with a view to achieving a better
balance. Last but not least, as society changes and political climates shift, the
ongoing analysis, discussion and potentially statutory revisions are essential in
maintaining this balance and ensuring that both respect is shown for the right to
freedom of assembly.

Bibliography:

1. *Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and Others* [2021] UKSC 23.

2. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Part 3.
3. Public Order Act 1986. ss 11, 12.
4. *R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister* [2019] UKSC
41.
5. European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11(2).
6. Human Rights Act 1998. Article 11.
7. Public Order Act 1986. Sections 11-14.
8. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
9. *Policing and Crime Bill: Briefing for Lords Stages*. House of Lords
Library, 2016.