Any barristers or someone who knows one?

kindai

kindai

kindai

Sgarrista
Commissario
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Posts
10,765
Location
Bromsgrove
A simple question relating to some protests that have taken place near me and how the police handled it.

Specifically related to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/section/6 subsection 6.

Which states:

In this section “major transport works” means—

(a)works in England and Wales—

(i)relating to transport infrastructure, and

(ii)the construction of which is authorised directly by an Act of Parliament, or

(b)works the construction of which comprises development within subsection (7) that has been granted development consent by an order under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008.
Click to expand...

Now the police threatened to arrest the protesters under this provision if they didnt move on.

As I personally read it, everything in section A has to be met to apply to be an offence.

So

It has to be in England and wales
AND
it has to be related to transport infrastructure
AND
the construction of which is authorised directly by an Act of Parliament


Now the police have interpretted this very broadly and when challenged said that actually it should be read as


It has to be in England and wales
AND
has to be relating to transport infrastructure


or


It has to be in England and wales
AND
the construction of which is authorised directly by an Act of Parliament


So, who is right on this? The result of the police interference if they have actually moved people on illegally is quite bad, so if anyone could provide some insight it would be greatly appreciated.
 
labbby said:
a bit more context is probably needed on this mate. Either the protest was at a very specific place or the Officer messed up the section/sub section of POA.
Click to expand...

Protesters were trying to stop some contractors felling some (well, nearly 1000) trees locally to widen a road for a council vanity project.

The question is specific to the section quoted above as if it is (a) + (i) + (ii) then the police have acted unlawfully by infringing on peoples right to protest under the ECHR in which case they need to be held to account.
 
Pudney said:
may well have been correct under 6(b) whether you agree or not.
Click to expand...

6(b) related to this:

Planning Act 2008

An Act to establish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and make provision about its functions; to make provision about, and about matters ancillary to, the authorisation of projects for the development of nationally significant infrastructure; to make provision about town and country...
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

Which as far as can be found, this project doesnt/didnt require such permission so it wouldnt apply either.
 
Zefan said:
The fact remains that we are only talking about a, b is irrelevant because the police aren't saying it has anything to do with that.
Click to expand...


Correct.

The police are saying that they moved people on because of (a)+(i).

We are saying it was illegal/wrong for them to do so because to move people on it should have to be (a)+(i)+(ii).

(b) doesnt apply/isnt relevant.
 
Nitefly said:
First, the A38 = ****ing old road.
Click to expand...

Yup it is.

It is also limited in its ability and capacity due to geographical features and housing. No matter what "improvements" they make it still has to bottleneck down to single file in multiple places.

The plans dont include changes at some of the most critical bottlenecks.

And the projected benefits are laughable, non rush hour traffic will be moving slower and travel taking longer, and by 2040, it will improve travel times by a whole 3 minutes during rush hour in 1 direction.

For years the people living here have been begging for a new modern "western bypass" to be built around the town, that would actually resolve the issues. To which WCC have refused.

Put bluntly the whole project is an absolute farse, a waste of tax payers money and causing massive environmental damage for no significant tangible benefit except lining the pockets of the contractors.

Nitefly said:
I doubt any of that was particularly helpful, but consider what the aim / desirable goals of taking this further is; if you’re happy with rattling cages then great, but I doubt they will abandon the whole thing if it’s part of wider schemes (including improvements necessary for housing etc.)
Click to expand...

The project will go ahead regardless. However we have already secured major consessions and changes to the plans (such as making sure replanting takes place where the trees were removed rather than 20 miles down the road), dangerous propsals being scrapped, unpopular plans removed etc.

Its about holding the council and the police to account. The consultations for example didnt mention tree felling in the thousands, it just mentioned "minor felling" and "earthworks". And the police should not be acting as private security to the council.

Nitefly said:
Whilst typing I’ve also just seen @ubersonic’s post re: M42/M5 - it’s possible these A38 works are considered ‘reasonably necessary’ in connection with that under s(1)(a)(3).
Click to expand...

From the information we have managed to pry out the council via FoA requests, it appears that this project, while linking the motorways, is its own thing and considered local and unrelated to the motorway improvement works.
 
ubersonic said:
I think the bigger problem for the protesters is that because it's been given a Developmental Consent Order, and it is associated with the M42/M5 project that fulfils subsection (6)(B), that in turn fulfils the entirety of Subsection 6, regardless of the status of (A) or it's subsequent (i)(ii) sections :(
Click to expand...

We already have confirmation from the police that their actions were undertaken under (6)(a). Hence the question on if their interpretation of it is right or wrong and why ive said (b) is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom