Jones & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an expedited, rolled-up hearing of an application for permission to apply for judicial review and, if granted, a claim for judicial review of a decision by a senior police officer to impose a condition on a series of protests known as the "Autumn Uprising" organised by an environmental pressure movement ("XR"). The protests were planned to take place at multiple sites within the Metropolitan and City of London police areas between 7 and 19 October 2019, aiming to cause disruption to prompt political engagement on climate and ecological issues.

On 14 October 2019, the senior police officer imposed a condition under section 14(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act") requiring all assemblies linked to the Autumn Uprising to cease protests within London by 9pm that day. This condition was subsequently removed on 18 October 2019 after a review by a higher-ranking officer.

The Claimants include politicians and activists supporting XR, some of whom were arrested for breaching the condition. The Claimants issued a claim for judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the condition imposed on 14 October. The Commissioner responsible for policing the area delegated command responsibilities within a three-tier structure, with the officer imposing the condition acting as Bronze Commander for Contingencies.

The dispute focuses on the interpretation of the term "public assembly" within section 14(1) of the 1986 Act and the legality of imposing conditions on what was treated as one public assembly spanning multiple locations and times.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether certain Claimants had standing to bring the claim for judicial review.
2. Whether permission to apply for judicial review should be granted to those Claimants with standing.
3. Whether the police had power under section 14(1) of the 1986 Act to impose the condition on 14 October 2019, treating the Autumn Uprising as one public assembly.
4. If the power existed, whether the condition was so uncertain in its effect as to be unlawful.
5. What relief, if any, should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The Autumn Uprising consisted of multiple distinct public assemblies at different times and locations, not one single assembly.
• The condition imposed was unlawful because it treated multiple separate gatherings as one public assembly for the purposes of section 14(1) of the 1986 Act.
• The condition was uncertain in its wording, particularly the phrase "any assembly linked to" and the requirement to "cease their protest(s)".
• Some Claimants lacked sufficient interest (standing) to bring the claim as they were not directly affected or deterred by the condition.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Autumn Uprising was one coordinated public assembly spanning multiple locations within the Metropolitan and City of London police areas.
• The senior police officer had power under section 14(1) to impose conditions on this single assembly to prevent serious disruption.
• The condition was lawful and properly framed given the nature of the assembly.
• Some Claimants who supported XR but were not arrested or directly affected did not have standing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the statutory language of section 14(1) of the 1986 Act and the accompanying definitions in section 16. The phrase "the senior police officer" is defined as the most senior officer present at the scene of the assembly, implying a single, identifiable location or "scene". The definition of "public assembly" requires an assembly of two or more persons in a public place which is wholly or partly open to the air, again indicating a particular location rather than a broad area.

The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that the Autumn Uprising, spanning multiple locations and times within a large area, constituted one public assembly. Such an interpretation would permit a police officer to impose conditions on future intended assemblies not yet begun and over an area that includes many private places, contrary to the statutory definitions and the legislative intent.

The Court noted that the power to impose conditions under section 14(1) is limited to assemblies at a particular scene and cannot be used to impose area-wide bans or conditions on multiple separate gatherings as one assembly. This interpretation aligns with the statutory scheme, including powers to prohibit multiple assemblies under separate provisions, which require higher-level authorisation and have temporal and geographical limits.

Given this, the Court concluded that the condition imposed on 14 October 2019 was unlawful because it was based on the incorrect premise that the Autumn Uprising was one public assembly at a single scene. The Court did not need to decide the issue of the certainty of the condition's wording because the condition was invalid on the primary ground.

Regarding standing, the Court found that only those Claimants who were arrested or directly affected by the condition had standing to bring the claim. Others, despite their interest, did not have a sufficient interest as they were not shown to be deterred or affected.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted to those with standing and refused to others accordingly. The Court granted a quashing order to invalidate the decision to impose the condition.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that:

• The condition imposed on 14 October 2019 was unlawful and is quashed.
• The Autumn Uprising was not one public assembly at a single scene for the purposes of section 14(1) of the 1986 Act, but rather multiple separate assemblies.
• Only Claimants directly affected or arrested have standing to bring such a claim.
• Permission to apply for judicial review was granted only to those Claimants with standing.

The direct effect is that the decision to impose the condition was invalidated, but no new legal precedent was established beyond clarifying the proper interpretation of "public assembly" under section 14(1) of the 1986 Act. The Court noted other statutory powers exist to control protests designed to cause significant disruption, but these were not before the Court and no comment was made on their use.