Introduction

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ziegle & Ors ([2019] EWHC 71 (Admin)) represents a significant judicial examination of the interplay between statutory provisions and human rights protections in the context of public protests. This case involved eight defendants charged under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for obstructing the highway during protests connected to the Defence and Security International (DSEI) fair held at the Excel Centre in East London on September 5, 2017. The defendants argued their actions were protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The trial judge initially dismissed the charges, but the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed the decision, prompting a deeper analysis of the legal standards governing lawful excuses for obstruction.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court's judgment addressed whether the trial judge, DJ Hamilton, was correct in dismissing the obstruction charges against the defendants by determining that their actions were a lawful excuse under the ECHR rights. The court examined whether the defendants' protest actions were reasonable and proportionate. Ultimately, the High Court found that DJ Hamilton erred in his assessment of proportionality. Specifically, the court held that there was no fair balance between the defendants' rights to protest and the public's right to free passage along the highway. As a result, the appeal was allowed for the first four defendants, leading to the quashing of their acquittals and remittance for sentencing. However, the appeals concerning the fifth to eighth defendants were dismissed due to procedural issues regarding the timing of the DPP's application.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents to elucidate the legal framework governing obstruction and human rights in protests:

• Westminster City Council v Brian Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 QB: This case established that unauthorized demonstrations causing prima facie obstruction can be reasonable if they exercise rights under Articles 10 or 11 of the ECHR.
• Hirst v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1986) 85 Cr App R 143: Highlighted the balance between the right to protest and the necessity of maintaining public order.
• Nagy v Weston [1965] 1 All ER 78: Discussed the concept of "lawful excuse" as synonymous with "reasonableness" in the context of highway obstruction.
• Director of Public Prosecutions v Jones (Margaret) [1999] 2 AC 240: Although predating the Human Rights Act 1998, it influenced the understanding of lawful authority and excuses in public protests.
• Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33: Provided guidance on appellate courts' roles in assessing proportionality under the Human Rights Act.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court delved into the statutory interpretation of section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 in light of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which mandates that all public authorities, including courts, act in compatibility with ECHR rights. The court emphasized the principle of proportionality, requiring a balance between the defendants' rights to protest and the public's right to free passage. Key points in the legal reasoning included:

• The necessity of interpreting statutory language ("lawful excuse") in a manner consistent with ECHR rights.
• The assessment of whether the obstruction was proportionate, taking into account factors such as duration, completeness of blockage, and the ability of the public to find alternative routes.
• The rejection of treating ECHR rights as a "trump card," instead advocating for a nuanced balancing of rights.
• The importance of a fair balance between individual freedoms and community interests in determining reasonableness.

The High Court concluded that DJ Hamilton failed to adequately weigh these factors, particularly in recognizing the significant obstruction and lack of alternative routes available to the public during the protests.

Impact

This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving the intersection of protest activities and public order laws. It clarifies that while the exercise of ECHR rights to freedom of expression and assembly is protected, such rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of others to use public highways unimpeded. The decision underscores the necessity for courts to conduct thorough proportionality assessments and not to inadequately discount the public's right to free passage. Additionally, the dismissal of appeals for the fifth to eighth defendants on procedural grounds reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in legal proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Lawful Excuse under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980

Section 137 makes it an offense to willfully obstruct the free passage of a highway without lawful authority or excuse. A lawful excuse is a defense where the defendant's actions are deemed reasonable under the circumstances, often invoking rights under the ECHR.

Proportionality

Proportionality is a legal principle used to assess whether the limitations imposed on a right are appropriate and balanced in relation to the aim pursued. It involves evaluating the necessity and minimality of the interference concerning the rights involved.

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the ECHR into UK law, requiring public authorities to act in ways compatible with the rights outlined in the Convention. This includes rights to freedom of expression (Article 10) and peaceful assembly (Article 11).

Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR

- Article 10: Protects the right to freedom of expression, encompassing the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas.
- Article 11: Protects the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Conclusion

The decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Ziegle & Ors marks a critical development in the interpretation of obstruction laws within the framework of human rights protections. By overturning the initial acquittals, the High Court underscored the imperative of balancing the right to protest with the public's right to unobstructed use of highways. This case elucidates the boundaries of lawful protest activities, affirming that while peaceful assembly and expression are fundamental in a democratic society, they must not infringe upon the legitimate rights of others. Moreover, the judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that statutory provisions are applied in harmony with human rights obligations, setting a precedent for future cases involving public demonstrations and legal protests.