Shoreham-by-Sea

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