Director of Public Prosecutions v Cathy Eastburn
[2023] EWHC 1063 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court
21 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2938 (Admin)
High Court
Two people were acquitted of shouting insults at a politician during a protest. The judge said their actions were a reasonable way to express their views. The prosecution tried to appeal, but the higher court agreed with the judge, saying he'd correctly considered everything and that their actions weren't a crime.
Key Facts
- •Ruth Wood and Radical Haslam were acquitted by Manchester Magistrates' Court of using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour under s.4A of the Public Order Act 1986.
- •The acquittal was based on the judge's finding that their conduct was a reasonable exercise of their Article 10 and/or Article 11 Convention rights.
- •The prosecution sought to state a case for appeal, but the judge refused, deeming the application frivolous.
- •The prosecution brought judicial review proceedings challenging both the acquittal and the refusal to state a case.
Legal Principles
Section 4A(3)(b) of the Public Order Act 1986 provides a defence if the accused proves their conduct was reasonable.
Public Order Act 1986, s.4A(3)(b)
The Human Rights Act 1998 requires primary legislation to be read compatibly with Convention rights, and it is unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights.
Human Rights Act 1998, ss.3(1) and 6(1)
Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees freedom of expression, subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10
Article 11 of the ECHR guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly and association, subject to similar limitations.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 11
In cases involving Convention rights, the burden of proving the proportionality of any interference rests on the state (here, the prosecution).
Various case law, including Ziegler and Attorney General's Reference
The reasonableness defence under s.4A(3)(b) requires a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment to determine if a conviction would be a proportionate interference with Convention rights.
Various case law, including Ziegler, Attorney General's Reference, and Abortion Services
Outcomes
The court dismissed the claim for judicial review.
The judge's approach to the reasonableness defence, including the proportionality assessment, was not erroneous. The judge correctly considered the context and circumstances, and his conclusion was open to him.
The judge's refusal to state a case was upheld.
The application to state a case was deemed frivolous as it was misconceived and hopeless, focusing on disagreements with the decision rather than genuine errors of law.