Queen’s Bench Divisional Court

Published April 9, 2008

Regina (Tabernacle) v Secretary of State for Defence

A ban on innocuous activities on publicly accessible land owned by the Ministry of Defence was unlawful.

The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Walker) so held on March 6, 2008, when allowing in part an application by the claimant, Kay Tabernacle, for judicial review of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston Bylaws 2007, made by the Secretary of State for Defence on March 27, 2007, under section 14(1) of the Military Lands Act 1892.

The Aldermaston women’s peace camp, to which the claimant belonged, protested at the establishment by camping on land owned by the ministry.

The 2007 Bylaws criminalised certain activities on that land including camping, acting in an annoying manner and, by bylaw 7(2)(g), attaching anything to, or placing anything over any wall, fence, structure or other surface.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY said that apart from bylaw 7(2)(g), the bylaws were reasonably certain and proportionate and did not interfere unlawfully with the claimant’s rights to freedom of expression and of assembly under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Bylaw 7(2)(g) infringed common law principles. The controlled areas included man-made structures which had no relevance to national security.

There would need to be a strong justification for banning activities such as visitors placing pullovers on benches, or a hiker stopping at a monument and putting his rucksack down.

Concerns identified could be met without prohibiting innocuous activities. The bylaw would be quashed. No useful purpose was served by examining its compatibility with articles 10 and 11.

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones