Mass Arrest Legality In Protests
๐น Overview: Mass Arrests in Protests โ Legal Context
Mass arrests during protests involve the police detaining large groups of people at a single event, often to control crowds, prevent disorder, or respond to breaches of the peace. However, these arrests must comply with legal standards โ namely:
Lawful grounds for arrest: Police must have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or is being committed.
Proportionality and necessity: Arrests must be necessary to achieve a legitimate policing aim.
Human rights compliance: Arrests and detention must respect rights under Article 5 (right to liberty) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mass arrests often raise concerns of arbitrary detention or unlawful interference with lawful protests.
๐น Key Legal Principles
Reasonable suspicion (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s. 24): Police can only arrest if they suspect a person of committing an offence.
Preventive arrest (common law or under Public Order Act 1986): In some cases, police may arrest to prevent an imminent breach of the peace.
Necessity test: Is the arrest necessary to prevent harm, a breach of peace, or allow lawful prosecution?
Proportionality: Police action must not be excessive relative to the threat posed.
๐น Case Law Analysis: Mass Arrests & Protests
Here are six important cases that explore these issues and shape the law around mass arrests during protests:
1. R (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55
๐ธ Facts:
Police stopped and arrested coachloads of protesters en route to a demonstration at RAF Fairford.
Arrests were made to prevent a breach of peace before any offence occurred.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Was the preventive mass arrest lawful under the necessity and proportionality principles?
๐ธ Held:
The House of Lords held the arrests were unlawful and disproportionate because there was no imminent breach of the peace.
Police cannot arrest to prevent a breach of peace if the breach is not imminent or likely.
๐ธ Significance:
Established strict limits on preventive mass arrests.
Reinforced that the right to protest must be balanced with public order but that arrests must be necessary and proportionate.
2. R (Gillan and Quinton) v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 28
๐ธ Facts:
Two protesters were stopped and searched under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 without reasonable suspicion.
They challenged the legality of these stop-and-search powers and related arrests.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Was the stop and search/arrest a breach of Article 8 (privacy) and Article 5 (liberty) of the ECHR?
๐ธ Held:
The European Court of Human Rights held the stop and searches were not sufficiently circumscribed by law and thus violated the ECHR.
Highlighted the importance of legal safeguards to prevent arbitrary arrest/detention.
๐ธ Significance:
Although not strictly a mass arrest case, it sets out clear boundaries on police powers regarding stops, searches, and arrests at protests.
3. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
๐ธ Facts:
Focused on prisonersโ rights, but principles apply broadly about lawful detention and searches.
Established proportionality and legality tests regarding deprivation of liberty.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
What are the limits on lawful deprivation of liberty?
๐ธ Held:
Any restriction on liberty (such as arrest) must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
๐ธ Significance:
Provides foundational principles used in evaluating the legality of mass arrests during protests.
4. R (on the application of T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2009] EWHC 3247 (Admin)
๐ธ Facts:
A mass arrest was made during a protest, and the claimant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Was the arrest lawful given the police's suspicion and conduct?
๐ธ Held:
The High Court ruled the arrest was unlawful because there was insufficient individualized suspicion for the claimant.
Mass arrests must be based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing for each individual.
๐ธ Significance:
Affirms that police must have individualized reasonable suspicion even in mass arrest situations.
5. Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5
๐ธ Facts:
Police kettled (contained) protesters during a demonstration in London, some of whom were arrested.
Claimants argued this breached their rights to liberty and assembly.
๐ธ Legal Issue:
Was the kettling and subsequent arrest proportionate and lawful?
๐ธ Held:
The House of Lords held kettling and related arrests were lawful and proportionate as a public order tactic in the circumstances.
However, proportionality depends on context and must be continually assessed.
๐ธ Significance:
Recognizes police tactics like kettling may justify mass detention/arrest, but with strict limits.
6. R (Laporte) Revisited โ Importance in Mass Arrest Cases
Reiterates the importance of imminence and proportionality in mass arrests.
Mass arrest is lawful only when there is a real and immediate threat requiring urgent police intervention.
Preventive arrests without such threat breach rights under Articles 5 and 11 ECHR.
๐น Summary: Principles From Case Law
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Reasonable Suspicion | Must exist for each individual arrested, even in mass arrests. |
| Necessity | Arrests must be necessary to prevent harm or breach of peace. |
| Proportionality | Police action must be proportionate to the threat. |
| Imminence | Breach of peace or offence must be imminent or occurring. |
| Human Rights Compliance | Arrests must comply with rights to liberty and assembly. |
| Preventive Arrest Limits | Cannot arrest in advance without clear immediate risk. |
๐น Conclusion
Mass arrests during protests are a highly sensitive and regulated police power. While police must maintain public order and safety, arrests must be:
Based on reasonable suspicion of offences,
Necessary to prevent imminent harm,
Proportionate in scale and impact, and
Respectful of human rights, especially the right to peaceful assembly and liberty.
Failure to meet these requirements can lead to unlawful detention claims, civil actions, and violations of human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments