City of London v Samede & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns claims made by the City of London Corporation ("the City") for possession of highway and other open land in the churchyard of St Paul's Cathedral, occupied by defendants as a protest camp associated with the "Occupy" movement. The City seeks possession and injunctions to remove tents and structures from the land. The City acts as planning authority, local authority, and highway authority for the relevant land. The defendants include representative persons appointed under court rules and persons unknown participating in the protest camp. The Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral is not a party but provided evidence.

The protest camp was established in mid-October 2011, consisting of between 150 and 200 tents and associated facilities, occupying highway land owned by the City (Area 1), adjacent Church-owned land (Area 2), and a larger surrounding open area also owned by the City (Area 3). The City did not consent to the occupation and served notices requiring removal, which were not complied with. Attempts at negotiation failed, leading to litigation. The hearing lasted five days in December 2011, with evidence from witnesses for both sides.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the City is entitled to possession of Areas 1 and 3, subject to consideration of the defendants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
2. Whether the City should succeed in its claim for injunctive and declaratory relief for Areas 1, 2, and 3, again subject to the Convention rights.
3. Whether any interference with the defendants' Convention rights entailed in granting relief would be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.

Arguments of the Parties

City of London Corporation's Arguments

• The defendants have no arguable right to occupy, control, or take possession of highway land from the highway authority; the statutory framework vests control and possession in the City.
• The protest camp constitutes a substantial and unreasonable obstruction of the highway, amounting to a public and private nuisance.
• Criminal sanctions under the Highways Act 1980 are insufficient to remove the camp; injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate.
• The City has sought negotiation and only pursued litigation after reasonable offers were rejected.
• The interference with the defendants' Convention rights is justified, necessary, and proportionate to protect the rights of others, including worshippers at St Paul's Cathedral, public safety, prevention of disorder, and planning control.
• The protest camp causes significant harm, including obstruction of pedestrian routes, disruption to worship, damage to the cathedral's environment, increased crime and anti-social behaviour, and adverse impact on local businesses.

Defendants' Arguments

• The protest camp is a reasonable use of the land; the obstruction is not such as to prevent passage and is transitional in nature.
• The defendants lawfully exercise their rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR to assemble and protest peacefully on the highway.
• The City has not lost control or possession of the land; efforts have been made to mitigate impacts, including fire lanes and sanitation.
• No breach of the Highways Act 1980 section 137 has occurred due to lawful excuse arising from the exercise of Convention rights.
• The camp does not significantly impact the rights and freedoms of others, including worshippers, and does not cause significant harm to local businesses or increase crime.
• The interference with Convention rights would be disproportionate and not justified by any pressing social need.
• The camp represents an unprecedented form of protest, integral to the message and success of the Occupy movement.
• The City has not demonstrated that injunctions or possession orders are necessary or proportionate; alternative measures such as restricting overnight occupation of tents would suffice.

Additional Submissions by Defendant Representatives

• One defendant emphasized the protest as a lawful excuse to break the law in urgent circumstances, invoking historical and legal precedents supporting civil disobedience.
• Another highlighted the democratic importance and symbolic nature of the camp and its location, arguing for the protest's necessity and legitimacy.
• Arguments stressed the global significance of the protest's themes and the essential role of the encampment in sustaining public debate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed factual and legal analysis. It found that the City owns and maintains the highway land (Areas 1 and 3) and open land (Area 2) adjacent to St Paul's Cathedral. The defendants have established a substantial protest camp occupying these areas without consent, with 150-200 tents and associated structures. The occupation constitutes physical possession and control of the land, excluding the City from possession.

The camp causes a significant obstruction of the highway—approximately 79-80% of the width in Area 1—materially restricting pedestrian movement and access. This obstruction is wilful and constitutes a criminal offence under the Highways Act 1980. The camp also causes public and private nuisances, including noise, odour, graffiti, urination, defecation, and disruption to worship at the cathedral. The protest camp has led to a 40% reduction in visitors and worshippers at St Paul's Cathedral and has negatively impacted local businesses.

The court accepted the City's evidence that the camp amounts to a material change of use requiring planning permission, which has not been granted and would be unlikely to succeed. The City has statutory powers to seek possession and injunctions to remove unlawful occupation and breaches of planning control.

While the court acknowledged the fundamental importance of the defendants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 to freedom of expression and assembly, it emphasized that these rights are qualified and may be restricted if necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of others, public safety, and order. The court found that the City had properly balanced these rights and that the interference proposed is justified.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the camp is a reasonable use of the highway or that the interference is disproportionate. It found that the obstruction is indefinite, substantial, and that the camp's effects on others, particularly worshippers at the cathedral, are severe. Alternative measures proposed by defendants, such as removing tents only at night, would not address the core issues.

The court considered relevant precedents and statutory provisions, concluding that the City is entitled to possession and injunctive relief. The interference with Convention rights is the least intrusive means to meet pressing social needs, striking a fair balance without imposing an excessive burden on the defendants.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision is that the City's claim succeeds. It is entitled to possession of Areas 1 and 3 and to injunctive and declaratory relief requiring the removal of the protest camp and preventing its re-establishment on those lands and Area 2.

HOLDING: The City of London Corporation is entitled to possession and injunctive relief to remove the protest camp occupying highway and open land at St Paul's Churchyard.

Implications of this decision include the immediate requirement for the defendants to vacate the occupied land, thereby restoring public highway rights and protecting the rights of others, including worshippers at St Paul's Cathedral. The decision does not set new legal precedent beyond confirming the application of existing principles balancing rights to protest with public rights and statutory duties. It underscores that indefinite occupation of highway land as a protest camp is not protected under the law where it causes substantial obstruction, nuisance, and harm to others' rights.