Constitutional Law: City of London v Samede [2012] EWHC 34 (QB)

Constitutional Law: City of London v Samede [2012] EWHC 34 (QB)

Introduction

City of London v Samede [2012] EWHC 34 (QB) raises various constitutional issues.

This case questions various factors such as what are the limits for all the right of lawful and protest on the road? In a democratic society, which is a critical issue. Arises in this case, in this way. Are those limits extend to the indefinite occupation of land by the road camp protesters who say that this form of protest is essential to the exercise of their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights when the land they have chosen to occupy is in a prominent place in the heart of the metropolis, next to a cathedral of national and international importance, which is visited annually by thousands of people and where many thousands more come to exercise their right under Article 9 of the Convention. Many of the occupants of the camp had designated his organization the "Occupy Movement."

Discussion

The defendants' beef affected was set up in St Paul's Churchyard on 15 and 16 October 2011. It consists of a ample amount of tents, amid 150 and 200 at the time of the hearing, abounding of them acclimated by protestors, either consistently or from time to time, as brief accommodation, and several beyond tents acclimated for added activities and casework including the captivation of affairs and the accoutrement of a "university" (called "Tent City University"), a library, a aboriginal aid facility, a abode for women and children, a abode area aliment and alcohol are served, and a "welfare" facility. The size and extent of the field has changed over time. Shortly before the hearing his presence back in some places. At an earlier stage some adjustments were made to it in an effort to keep fire lanes open. "The land in the ownership of the highway in the city that is occupied by the camp has been mentioned in the proceedings as Area 1, which is divided into two separate sections a short distance. Next to that land is a smaller area, has been called zone 2 and is owned by the Church. Area 1 is part of a much larger area of land the road and open source around the cathedral, which has been referred to as Area 3. The City does not has given any license or authorization for the protest camp, which at the time of the hearing, had been in place for over two months. City Attempts to agree with the protesters a deadline for withdrawal have failed. Several witnesses of the defendants have made clear that it intends to stay for some time: the time is unclear.

Most of the area occupied by the camp consisted of a dirt road owned by the local authority, but also includes other land owned by the church. The local authority applied for orders of possession of the land the ...