Officials "exceeded powers" when barring demonstrators from entering court
Court officials exceeded their powers when they barred supporters of the founder of the Fathers 4 Justice pressure group from entering Aldershot Magistrates Court.
That ruling has come from the High Court in a case brought by campaign founder Matthew O’Connor.
Mr O’Connor had been summoned to appear in a case concerning public order offences and had planned a demonstration outside the building.
In the event no protest was held but those accompanying Mr O’Connor were barred from entering unless they were witnesses.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Leggatt said the case raised questions about the respective powers of courts and court staff to exclude members of the public from a court building because of a perceived risk that they will cause disruption, and about when an unlawful limitation of access deprives a hearing of its public character.
He noted that permission for the judicial review had been given because “this case raises important issues which have potential implications for other cases”.
The decision to exclude Mr O’Connor’s associates had been taken by officials of HM Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) who feared disruption.
Leggatt J said Mr O’Connor's case “had aroused a strong interest, not only among some supporters of his organisation but also among some individuals involved in local Hampshire politics.
“To prevent all the people who came to support Mr O'Connor, without any valid reason, from exercising their right to observe the proceedings not only created a strong and understandable sense of grievance but had the consequence that justice could not be seen to be done.”
He said it was mistaken to assume that HMCTS had the ordinary rights of an occupier to restrict entry to its premises.
The court declared that the refusal of HMCTS staff and magistrates to allow Mr O’Connor's supporters to observe his trial was unlawful.
Exclusion powers could be exercised by officials without reference to the judiciary in ‘plain cases’ such as when someone was drunk or violent.
But when a member of the public wished to attend a hearing and there was a dispute about their right to, that should be decided by the court concerned.
“If a person is wrongly being denied entry, they should not be left in the position of having to incur the substantial burden of bringing proceedings after the event to vindicate their right, when the opportunity to be present has been lost,” the judgment said.
“To exclude members of the public potentially affect the fairness and validity of the court process. It is therefore integral to the court's ability to control its own process that such decisions are taken by the court.”
Mark Smulian
