Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court
[2023] EWHC 2938 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cathy Eastburn
5 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1063 (Admin)
High Court
A woman was acquitted for protesting illegally, but the court of appeal said the original judge was wrong. The law says if the police followed the rules in ordering her to stop protesting, then it doesn't matter how little disruption she caused – she broke the law and should be convicted. The original judge should not have considered if her actions were 'proportionate'.
Key Facts
- •Cathy Eastburn participated in an Extinction Rebellion protest in Parliament Street on September 2, 2020, in violation of a Section 14 Public Order Act 1986 direction confining the assembly to Parliament Square Gardens.
- •She was acquitted at the City of London Magistrate’s Court, leading to the Director of Public Prosecutions' appeal.
- •The protest was peaceful, causing minimal disruption according to the judge's findings.
- •The judge acquitted Ms. Eastburn on the grounds that a conviction would be a disproportionate interference with her ECHR Articles 10 and 11 rights.
- •The appeal centers on whether proportionality should be assessed beyond proving the statutory elements of the offence under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Legal Principles
Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows police to impose conditions on public assemblies to prevent serious disruption. A person knowingly failing to comply commits an offence.
Public Order Act 1986, s 14
ECHR Articles 10 (Freedom of Expression) and 11 (Freedom of Assembly) are qualified rights; restrictions are permissible if lawful, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate.
European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 10 & 11
In offences under s.14 of the Public Order Act 1986, satisfying the statutory test for the imposition of a direction or condition is proof that the imposition is proportionate. No additional proportionality assessment is required.
James v DPP [2015] EWHC 3296 (Admin), DPP v Cuciurean [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin), Attorney General’s Reference No.1 of 2022, In re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022] UKSC 32
Outcomes
The DPP's appeal was allowed.
The court held that the judge erred in conducting a proportionality assessment beyond proving the statutory elements of the offence under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The Supreme Court’s decision in *In re Abortion Services* clarified that satisfying the statutory elements of Section 14 is sufficient to meet proportionality requirements.
The case was remitted to the City of London Magistrates’ Court to convict Ms. Eastburn.
The judge should have convicted Ms. Eastburn upon finding the statutory ingredients of the offence proved. The minimal disruption caused can be considered during sentencing.
Similar Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court (Consequential Matters)
[2024] EWHC 111 (Admin)
Debbie Hicks, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates' Court
[2023] EWHC 1090 (Admin)
Jones v Birmingham City Council and another
[2023] UKSC 27
Joshua Smith & Ors v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1040