City of London wins High Court battle to remove St Paul's protest camp but appeal looms

January 19, 2012

The City of London Corporation has won its High Court case over the eviction of the protest camp outside St Paul’s, with the judge saying the factors for granting relief “easily” outweighed those against.

Mr Justice Lindblom said the authority had “undoubtedly” established a pressing social need not to permit the camp to remain at the cathedral. The camp has been in place since 15 October 2011.

Interference with the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights was “entirely lawful and justified”, he found.

The High Court judge refused the protesters’ permission to appeal. However, the defendants and their lawyers immediately said they would seek to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

Daniel Ashman, one of the defendant protesters, said: “There are still avenues that can be exhausted. We will exhaust these avenues to see whether true justice can exist.”

Barrister Michael Paget added: “The judge could have said that we are not allowed to stay overnight. But he has gone much further than that and said that we’re not allowed to go there during the day. That is the ground for the appeal.”

In a summary of his judgment, Mr Justice Lindblom said:

The City of London had established that it was entitled to possession of Area 1 (as set out in the proceedings), and had to succeed in its claim for an immediate order for possession of this land unless to grant such an order would unacceptably affect the defendants’ exercise of their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR;
Subject to the same consideration on Articles 10 and 11, the City of London was also entitled to an order for possession for the whole of Area 3 (of which Area 1 was a part). The judge said he saw force in the City of London’s submission that the inclusion of Area 3 in the order for possession, if one was made, was “a prudent and, indeed, necessary, precaution against the defendants moving off Areas 1 and 2 on to adjacent highway land and open space”;
Subject to the tests of necessity and proportionality being met, the City of London was entitled to the injunctions it sought under the Highways Act 1980 and to a declaration that – under its powers at common law – it could enter Area 1 and remove any tents not removed in accordance with an order made under section 130;
Unusual though the circumstances might be, this was “plainly the kind of situation for which an injunction under section 187B [of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990] is suitable”. The City of London was therefore entitled, subject to the tests of necessity and proportionality being met, to an injunction to require the removal of the tents located in Areas 1 and 2, and to prevent the further pitching of tents within Areas 1, 2 and 3;
It was not for the court to venture views of its own on the substance of the protest itself, or to gauge how effective it had been in bringing the protesters’ views to the fore. The High Court is a court of law, “not of policy, opinion or politics”;
There were a number of “powerful considerations” pointing to the outcome for which the City of London contended. “The extent and duration of the obstruction of the highway, and the public nuisance inherent in that obstruction, would itself warrant making an order for possession and granting injunctive and declaratory relief. So would the effect on visits to the cathedral. So would the other private nuisance to the Church. So would the planning harm….”;
Adding all of these things together, there is “an unusually persuasive case on the positive side of the balance”. The judge therefore said the arguments of counsel for the City of London on the Convention issues, and his submissions on the questions of need and proportionality, had to be accepted;
The City of London had “undoubtedly” established a pressing social need not to permit the protest camp to remain in St Paul’s Churchyard and to prevent it being located elsewhere on any of the land to which the proceedings related. Equally, it would “undoubtedly” not be disproportionate to grant the relief the City of London claimed;
The proposed interference with the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 was “the least intrusive way in which to meet the pressing social need” and struck a fair balance between the needs of the community and the individuals concerned so as not to impose an excessive burden on them. “Withholding relief at this stage would be plainly wrong”;
The freedoms and rights of others, the interests of public health and public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime, and the need to protect the environment of this part of the City of London all demanded the remedy which the court’s orders would bring;
Interference with the defendants’ Articles 10 and 11 rights was “entirely lawful and justified” both at common law and within the statutory regimes Parliament had enacted for the purposes of safeguarding the public right to use the highway and for the effective enforcement of planning control. “It is necessary. And it is proportionate”;
The City of London’s decision to seek relieve was neither precipitate nor ill-considered. “I am satisfied that the City had no sensible choice but to do what it has. “Conscious of its duties under statute, it gave the defendants an ample opportunity to remove the protest camp without the need for time and money to be spend in legal proceedings”; and
The City of London had “behaved both responsibly and fairly throughout”.

The judge said the City of London’s claim would succeed and refused permission to appeal. He acknowledged that the defendants would be disappointed with the ruling but paid tribute to the conduct of all those who participated in the case,

Stuart Fraser, the City of London’s Policy Chairman, said: “We took this action to clear the tents and equipment at St Paul’s. We hope the protesters will now remove the tents voluntarily. If not, and subject to any appeal proceedings, we will be considering enforcement action.

‘‘Lawful protests are a regular part of City life but tents, equipment and increasingly, quite a lot of mess and nuisance, is not what a highway is for and the public generally is losing out – as evidence before the court made clear.’’

The City of London said its planning and transportation committee would meet on 31 January to consider the judgment.

Philip Hoult