Shoreham-by-Sea
Jack Beatson and Yvonne Cripps (eds) Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Essays in Honour of Sir David Williams (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000) 197-204
Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper Series, Cooke Paper No. 72/2017
5 Pages Posted: 18 Oct 2014 Last revised: 20 Apr 2017
Date Written: October 15, 2000
Abstract
In this book chapter, Lord Cooke comments on Sir David William’s contribution to the development of the public law principle that lawful activities may be restricted by the police in order to maintain the peace, as recognised in Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308. Lord Cooke begins by discussing the recent House of Lords’ decision R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Trader’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418, [1999] 1 All ER 129. He then refers with approval to Sir David’s work The Law and Public Protest (cited by counsel in International Trader’s Ferry), which recognised limits on this public law principle. Lord Cooke goes on to criticise the result of Beatty, before turning to discuss the relevance of DPP v Jones [1999] 2 All ER 257 (HL) to this issue. He concludes by noting that this issue often reduces to a matter of fact and degree. Lord Cooke also refers in an addendum to a further relevant writing of Sir David and the recent Divisional Court decision, Redmond-Bate v DPP (1999) 7 BHRC 375 (QB).
Abstract by Tim Cochrane
Keywords: Lord Cooke, Sir David Williams, The Law and Public Protest, House of Lords, Beatty v Gillbanks, International Trader’s Ferry, DPP v Jones, Redmond-Bate v DPP, public protest, freedom of expression
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation