Name: Momna Akbar
Student ID: 377387
The first section will determine whether the Chief Constable has the authority to
intervene prior to the march to restrict its impact, as well as whether Batuuli is free to
express her opinions in the House of Commons. Furthermore, it will inform Ciaran of
the potential legal consequences of publishing the article. The second portion will
advise Jeremy on whether he can make a judicial review claim and, if so, what
grounds of challenge are available to him.
Part A
a) Under s12 of Public Order Act 19861 if the senior police officer, having regard to
the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is
being held or is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route can impose
conditions if he reasonably believes that
(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious
disruption to the life of the community.2
(aa)in the case of a procession in England and Wales, the noise generated by
persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities
of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession. (ab)in the
case of a procession in England and Wales—
(i) The noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a relevant
impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession, and
(ii)that impact may be significant.
In this scenario, considering the previous disorder that occurred during a similar
march last year outside the offices of Reject Political Refugees (RPR), the Chief
Constable could reasonably believe that this procession may lead to serious public
disorder. Additionally, the intention of the marchers to carry loud air horns and
amplification equipment could further exacerbate the potential for disorder and
disruption.
The noise generated by the participants in the procession, such as the loud air horns
and amplification equipment, may indeed have a relevant impact on persons in the
vicinity of the procession. This impact could include disturbance to residents,
disruption to the organization, and general inconvenience to members of the public
who are not participating in the march. Given the intention of the marchers to carry
loud and potentially disruptive equipment, it is reasonable to expect that the noise
could significantly affect those in the vicinity. Therefore, the Chief Constable could
impose conditions on the procession to mitigate this disruption.
b) Freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by Article IX of the Bill of Rights
1689.
Batuuli, as a Member of Parliament (MP), holds parliamentary privilege when
speaking in the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege provides MPs with legal
immunities and protections to allow them to fulfill their parliamentary duties without
fear of legal repercussions. One aspect of parliamentary privilege is the freedom of
speech, which allows MPs to express their views and opinions freely within the
1 Public Order Act 1986
2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/129(Date: 04/05/23)
Student ID: 377387
The first section will determine whether the Chief Constable has the authority to
intervene prior to the march to restrict its impact, as well as whether Batuuli is free to
express her opinions in the House of Commons. Furthermore, it will inform Ciaran of
the potential legal consequences of publishing the article. The second portion will
advise Jeremy on whether he can make a judicial review claim and, if so, what
grounds of challenge are available to him.
Part A
a) Under s12 of Public Order Act 19861 if the senior police officer, having regard to
the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public procession is
being held or is intended to be held and to its route or proposed route can impose
conditions if he reasonably believes that
(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious
disruption to the life of the community.2
(aa)in the case of a procession in England and Wales, the noise generated by
persons taking part in the procession may result in serious disruption to the activities
of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession. (ab)in the
case of a procession in England and Wales—
(i) The noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a relevant
impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession, and
(ii)that impact may be significant.
In this scenario, considering the previous disorder that occurred during a similar
march last year outside the offices of Reject Political Refugees (RPR), the Chief
Constable could reasonably believe that this procession may lead to serious public
disorder. Additionally, the intention of the marchers to carry loud air horns and
amplification equipment could further exacerbate the potential for disorder and
disruption.
The noise generated by the participants in the procession, such as the loud air horns
and amplification equipment, may indeed have a relevant impact on persons in the
vicinity of the procession. This impact could include disturbance to residents,
disruption to the organization, and general inconvenience to members of the public
who are not participating in the march. Given the intention of the marchers to carry
loud and potentially disruptive equipment, it is reasonable to expect that the noise
could significantly affect those in the vicinity. Therefore, the Chief Constable could
impose conditions on the procession to mitigate this disruption.
b) Freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by Article IX of the Bill of Rights
1689.
Batuuli, as a Member of Parliament (MP), holds parliamentary privilege when
speaking in the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege provides MPs with legal
immunities and protections to allow them to fulfill their parliamentary duties without
fear of legal repercussions. One aspect of parliamentary privilege is the freedom of
speech, which allows MPs to express their views and opinions freely within the
1 Public Order Act 1986
2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/129(Date: 04/05/23)
