Bedfordshire Police v Golding & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 26 June, the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police sought interim injunctions under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ("the 2014 Act") against the Leader and Deputy Leader of a registered political party ("the Respondents"). The application was prompted by a proposed march scheduled for 27 June during Ramadan and coinciding with a community event known as "Luton in Harmony". The Respondents hold anti-Muslim views and had previously engaged in conduct causing alarm and distress, including an episode on 3 June involving provocative behavior and the display of an offensive banner stating "No More Mosques". The Court granted several interim injunctions prohibiting specific conduct but refused an injunction that would have banned the Respondents from entering the town of Luton entirely. The granted injunctions were effective for the March and were subject to a full hearing at a later date. The Respondents largely agreed to the interim injunctions granted, pending a full hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondents engaged or threatened to engage in anti-social behaviour within the meaning of the 2014 Act, justifying the grant of injunctions.
2. Whether it was just and convenient to grant interim injunctions preventing the Respondents from engaging in such behaviour.
3. Whether an injunction banning the Respondents from entering the town of Luton was appropriate.
4. The extent to which conduct predating the commencement of the 2014 Act could be considered in deciding to grant an injunction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Chief Constable argued that the Respondents’ conduct on 3 June caused alarm and distress and justified injunctions under the 2014 Act.
• The application was a direct response to the Respondents' personal actions in Luton on 3 June.
• Injunctions were necessary to prevent anti-social behaviour, including "mosque invasions" and the display of inflammatory banners.
• The Respondents' conduct threatened community cohesion and public order during the planned march.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents, through their Counsel, largely agreed to interim injunctions prohibiting specific conduct pending a full hearing.
• They contended that some conduct, such as previous "mosque invasions," had ceased since July 2014 and would not be repeated.
• They may challenge the appropriateness of injunctions overlapping with existing criminal law at the full hearing.
• The Respondents argued against a total ban from entering Luton, asserting their legitimate political activity and leadership roles in a registered party.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the statutory framework of the 2014 Act, focusing on the requirement that the Respondents engaged or threatened anti-social behaviour causing harassment, alarm, or distress. The Court considered evidence including witness statements and video footage of events on 3 June, which demonstrated provocative and offensive conduct by the Respondents, including the display of a banner stating "No More Mosques." The Court noted that conduct prior to the Act’s commencement date was excluded from consideration but found sufficient evidence within the relevant timeframe to justify injunctions.

The Court granted interim injunctions prohibiting entry to mosques without invitation, publication of materials likely to stir up hatred, use of threatening or abusive behaviour, and the display of specific inflammatory banners during the march. A power of arrest was attached due to the risk of violence or harm.

However, the Court refused to grant an injunction banning the Respondents from entering the town of Luton altogether, reasoning that the march was already regulated under the Public Order Act 1986 and that the Chief Constable had not demonstrated the necessity or consequences of such a broad prohibition. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing public order with the freedom of political expression and activity, particularly for leaders of a registered political party.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED interim injunctions (b), (c), (d), and (e) under the 2014 Act, prohibiting specific conduct by the Respondents related to mosques, inflammatory publications, abusive behaviour, and the display of certain banners during the march scheduled for 27 June.

The Court REFUSED the interim injunction (a) seeking to ban the Respondents from entering the town of Luton entirely, due to insufficient justification and concerns about impeding legitimate political activity.

The decision directly affected the Respondents’ conduct during the planned march and imposed specific behavioural restrictions but did not set new legal precedent beyond applying the statutory framework of the 2014 Act. The ruling underscores the need to balance preventing anti-social behaviour with protecting political freedoms.