DPP v Ziegler-Part A Jurisprudence-Case Analysis-2022 PDF

Preview

Summary

DPP v Ziegler: A framework for upholding protest rightsIn September 2017, an organised protest occurred at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair- a world-leading event, in the middle of the road outside the ExCeL Centre in East London. As a result of obstructing the highw...

Description

DPP v Ziegler: A framework for upholding protest rights In September 2017, an organised protest occurred at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair- a world-leading event, in the middle of the road outside the ExCeL Centre in East London. As a result of obstructing the highway during this protest, it led to the arrest and convictions of four anti-war protestors. However, recently in 2021, the judgement in the case of DPP v Ziegler and Ors [2021] has established a clear framework for dealing with protest cases that take place by blocking highways. This judgement is considered to be a breakthrough as it led to the convictions of the four DSEI antiwar-protestors being quashed and consequently upheld their ‘right to protest’.

A DIVE INTO THE PROTEST AT DSEI ARMS FAIR, 2017 This protest was held in efforts to prevent the delivery of weapons and their arrival at the DSEI arms fair. These protestors were firmly against the idea of selling arms and weapons, especially to countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain, who are reputedly seen as abusers of human rights. A protest coordinator against the arms trade, Andrew Smith, commented that “some of the world's most appalling regimes would be linked with the biggest arms companies through the DSEI event.” The protestors believed that the arms trade would act as a fueling agent for wars, repression and injustice and that these arms could be used to commit war crimes. The protestors' actions consisted of lying down and forming a blockade in the middle of the highway by using lock-on devices. When police efforts to remove the protestors from the highway failed, four protestors: Nora Ziegler, Henrietta Cullinan, Joanna Frew and Chris Cole were arrested on the spot, under section 137 of the Highways Act [1980] for obstruction of the highway, which states that “if a person willfully obstructs a highway without lawful authority or excuse, they will be guilty of an offence.” The four defendants went through a series of court hearings and appeals in the past few years. They had been cleared in February 2018 in the magistrate’s court because it was decided that they were exercising their rights of free speech and assembly; however, they were convicted in January 2019 when the Director of Public Prosecutions successfully made an appeal to the High Court to overturn the magistrate’s decision. Later, in December 2019, the defendants were granted an appeal to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the charges should be dismissed and that the High Court’s decisions should be overturned. On June 28th 2021, the defendant’s convictions were finally quashed when the Supreme Court enforced the new Ziegler judgement. INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW ZIEGLER JUDGEMENT AND QUASHED CONVICTIONS In the Judgement of DPP v Ziegler [2021] on June 28th, which rose out of the protests at the DSEI event in 2017, the Supreme Court scrutinized the interpretation of section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 based on which the arrests were made. They recognized that this section should be read compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1988 is a piece of legislation that sets out the rights and freedoms that every individual is entitled to. It further incorporates the rights set out in the ECHR into British domestic law. The Human Rights Act protects the right to protest under Article 11- Freedom of assembly and association, which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his/her interests.” This right allows individuals to enjoy several different peaceful forms of protests, but does it include the obstruction of a highway?

The ruling in Zeigler acknowledged that Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the ECHR extends to and protects protests that are deliberately obstructive. According to a comment made by Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens, “there should be a certain degree of tolerance towards disruption to ordinary life, including disruption of traffic; caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly.” Moreover, the court considered that the

protestors were conducting themselves peacefully; they did not intend to cause any trouble, and there were relevant matters to be considered in an evaluation of proportionality. Subsequently, contrary to section 137 of the Highways Act [1980], it was ruled that peaceful protests were capable of constituting a ‘lawful excuse’ for deliberate physical obstruction of the highway, even if it prevents other individuals from passing for the duration of that particular obstruction. Eventually, on the basis of this highly significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of the four anti-war activists. This passed on a nationwide message by upholding their right to protest. In conclusion, the right to protest is seen as a fundamental element of a properly functioning democratic society. Everyone has the right to gather collectively and willingly to make their voices heard. However, past events such as the DSEI protest of 2017 have shown that there is a risk of criminalizing peaceful protestors. Today, the Zeigler judgement has proven to be an instrument that helps remind the police and the prosecution that curtailing the right to protest would deeply undermine civil liberties and breach human rights....