The government has finally got its way in a Court of Appeal ruling that new laws introduced under the Serious and Organised Police Act to stop unauthorised protests within one kilometre of Parliament Square do apply to Brian Haw, despite the fact he began his vigil before the Act came into force.
Ruthie had always understood that it was not possible to enact laws to have retrospective effect since it would then be impossible to determine whether you may be punished at some future date for activity that is legitimate today. Apparently not so. Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said: “there is no sensible purpose in being able only to regulate demonstrations that commenced only after the Act came into force, but not those which began after it came into force but continued thereafter.”
Mr. Haw will now have to apply to the Commissioner for authority for his demonstration. Under the provisions of SOCA the Commissioner cannot ban demonstrations, but he can place conditions upon them and it is for him to decide on what conditions to place upon Mr. Haw’s demonstration.
Readers will therefore not be surprised to learn that police this week arrived just after 2am to Mr. Haw’s site and removed the majority of his placards.
Ruthie believed that the reason for the law was that politicians considered the demonstration as something of an eyesore. Ruthie notes that there is now an investigation going on into the activities of American Marines who are alleged to have run amok and shot up to 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, some in their homes.
I fear the result of this incident was somewhat more unappealing to the eye that Mr. Haw’s placards.
It would be nice, would it not?, to have a democracy like that in Iraq: where the people can protest peacefully against the State without the need for prior police consent.
Has the case been given permission to appeal to the Lords? Surely it is ludicrucious for laws to apply retrospectivly, even when the government is moaning…
It is in context with the Blair Government’s contempt for legal process.
A Government that removes voting rights of Hereditary Peers (bar 92), and continues to decry the unelected Upper House when it objects to legislation that is either fundamentally flawed or socially divisive, is quite likely to put pressure on the Appeal process to deny this person his former right to protest.
If the Blair Government had completed the reform of the Upper Chamber, who would the Blair Government blame when (if they have a conscience) the upper chamber did not just bounce its rubber stamp on the draft legislation.
They do seem intent on a police state, the only slight surprise is that they continue to cut the Armed Forces and send those that remain to foreign theatres of war.
Did you know that when the Royal Irish Regiment is disbanded that all Full-Time soldiers will receive, in addition to the usual redundancy payoff, a “Non Taxable” £28,000 lump sum.
I supported the removal of voting rights for hereditary peers on the basis that hereditary was not a valid qualification for the exercise of power. I did however believe that a democratic manadate was valid. Until George Galloway got elected and I started to lose my faith in the ability of the democratic system to produce an effective governement… They do say we get the Governement we deserve…