Unlawful Protest Encampment Prosecutions
🔍 What Are Unlawful Protest Encampments?
An unlawful protest encampment occurs when protesters set up temporary camps or occupy land without legal permission. These often arise during environmental protests, anti-development campaigns, or political demonstrations where protesters aim to physically disrupt or draw attention by occupying public or private land.
Common legal issues include trespass, obstruction, and breach of specific injunctions or statutory provisions designed to prevent unauthorised occupation.
⚖️ Legal Framework
Prosecutions relating to unlawful protest encampments typically rely on:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA)
Sections 61 and 62 deal specifically with the removal of trespassers and unlawful encampments on land.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Increased police powers to remove protesters and enforce restrictions on protests.
Common Law Trespass
Unauthorised occupation of land without consent.
High Court Injunctions
Court orders prohibiting entry or encampment; breach can lead to contempt proceedings.
Public Order Act 1986
Relevant for obstruction and causing public nuisance.
📚 Case Law – Detailed Examples
1. R (Morris and others) v. London Borough of Lewisham [2014]
Facts:
Environmental protesters set up a camp in a public park to oppose a development project. The council sought injunctions and police removed the camp under Section 61 CJPOA.
Legal Issues:
Legality of eviction under Section 61
Balance between right to protest and property rights
Judgment:
Court held the removal lawful, police acted within statutory powers.
Injunction against re-establishing camp was granted.
Significance:
Clarified police powers to remove trespassers in protest encampments.
Emphasised need for clear legal process.
2. R v. Jones and others (1999)
Facts:
Anti-road protesters occupied land for several weeks, constructing an encampment. Police removed protesters multiple times.
Legal Issues:
Application of CJPOA Section 61 (removal of trespassers)
Criminal charges for obstruction and aggravated trespass
Judgment:
Defendants convicted of aggravated trespass and obstruction.
Police powers to remove were upheld.
Significance:
Landmark case establishing that prolonged encampments without consent can be prosecuted.
3. R (Barker and others) v. Newcastle City Council (2019)
Facts:
Protesters set up an encampment opposing housing development on private land. The council sought injunctions and removal orders.
Legal Issues:
Use of injunctions against protest encampments
Right to protest vs property owner’s rights
Judgment:
Injunction granted; protesters’ appeal dismissed.
Breach of injunction led to contempt proceedings.
Significance:
Reinforced courts’ willingness to issue civil orders to prevent encampments.
Breach can lead to criminal sanctions.
4. R v. Clarke (2021)
Facts:
Clarke was convicted of refusing to leave a site after police issued a direction under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 during an unlawful encampment protest.
Legal Issues:
Enforcement of police directions to leave under new legislation
Criminal liability for non-compliance
Judgment:
Clarke found guilty; sentenced to a community order.
Court highlighted enhanced police powers under the 2022 Act.
Significance:
One of the first cases testing new legislative powers on protest encampments.
5. R v. Henderson and others (2013)
Facts:
Protesters at a large-scale fracking protest camp refused to leave land after a police direction under Section 61 CJPOA.
Legal Issues:
Failure to comply with police direction to leave
Aggravated trespass and obstruction charges
Judgment:
Multiple convictions; custodial sentences in some cases.
Police direction found lawful and proportionate.
Significance:
Demonstrated courts’ support for police in maintaining public order during prolonged protests.
6. R (Wilson and others) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2020)
Facts:
Protesters challenged the use of injunctions and removal orders as an unlawful restriction on protest rights during an encampment at a farm site.
Legal Issues:
Compatibility of injunctions with Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 10 & 11 – Freedom of Expression and Assembly)
Judgment:
Court held that injunctions were proportionate and lawful under the circumstances.
Protest rights are balanced against property and public safety.
Significance:
Confirmed that unlawful encampment removal can be justified under human rights law.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Police powers under CJPOA 1994 | Section 61 allows police to direct trespassers to leave land used for unlawful encampments. |
| Injunctions as a preventive tool | Civil courts issue injunctions to prohibit or limit encampments; breach may lead to contempt. |
| Balance of rights | Courts balance protest rights with property rights and public order considerations. |
| New legislative powers (2022 Act) | Enhanced powers for police to manage protests, including removal of unlawful camps. |
| Criminal sanctions for refusal | Refusing police directions to leave or breaching injunctions can result in criminal penalties. |
✅ Summary
Unlawful protest encampments in the UK are tackled through a combination of:
Police powers to remove trespassers (CJPOA 1994, Section 61)
Civil injunctions prohibiting camps
Criminal sanctions for non-compliance or obstruction
New powers introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
Case law consistently supports the legality of removing unlawful encampments, while recognising the need to carefully balance protest rights against property and public order. Protesters who refuse lawful police directions or breach court orders face prosecution and possible custodial sentences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments