Public Prosecutions Dir. v. Jones, (1999) 237 N.R. 18 (HL)

• Case Date: March 04, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 237 N.R. 18 (HL)

Public Prosecutions Dir. v. Jones (1999), 237 N.R. 18 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent) v. Jones and another (appellants)

Indexed As: Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Irvine of Lairg, L.C., Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton

March 4, 1999.

Summary:

The accused were convicted for taking part in a "trespassory assembly" on the verge of a highway. The accused appealed.

The Salisbury Crown Court allowed the appeal, holding that neither of the accused nor any member of their group was being destructive, violent, disorderly, threatening a breach of the peace or doing anything other than reasonably using the highway. The Crown appealed.

The Divisional Court reinstated the accused's convictions, holding that a peaceful assembly on the public highway exceeded the limits of the public's right of access with the meaning of the Public Order Act 1986. The accused appealed.

The House of Lords, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Hope of Craighead, dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 2341

Freedom of assembly - Limitations on - General - Accused appealed their convictions for taking part in a "trespassory assembly" on a highway - The House of Lords allowed the appeal - Lord Irvine of Lairg, L.C., held that a public highway was a public place, on which reasonable activities were permitted, including peaceful assemblies (subject to certain qualifications) - Lord Clyde held that the test required a careful assessment of the nature and extent of the activities - If the predominant purpose became the occupation of the highway or if the occupation became more than reasonably transitional in terms of time or space, then it could exceed the right to use the highway - Lord Hutton, held that a public assembly could constitute a reasonable use and a use's reasonableness was a question of fact - Lord Slynn of Hadley, dissenting, held that the right was restricted to passage and reasonable incidental uses - Lord Hope of Craighead, dissenting, held that there was a right of passage, but not a right to remain - The distinction between use for passage and use as place for assembly as an end in itself was a question of fact.

Highways - Topic 4004

Use of highways - General - Persons entitled to use - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2341 ].

Highways - Topic 4005

Use of highways - General - Nature of right - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2341 ].

Highways - Topic 5881

Offences - Use of highways - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2341 ].

Trials - Topic 3056

Offences - Trespass - Publicly-owned property - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2341 ].

Cases Noticed:

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Jones, [1997] 2 All E.R. 119, refd to. [para. 4].

Lewis, Ex parte (1888), 21 Q.B.D. 191 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 14, 49, 75].

Harrison v. Rutland (Duke), [1893] 1 Q.B. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15 et seq.].

Hickman v. Maisey, [1900] 1 Q.B. 752 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18 et seq.].

Hirst and Agu v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1987), 85 Cr. App. Rep. 143 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 31 et seq.].

Nagy v. Weston, [1965] 1 All E.R. 78; [1965] 1 W.L.R. 280 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 33, 57, 135].

Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1992] 1 Q.B. 770 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 35, 58, 94].

Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2), [1990] 1 A.C. 109 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 35, 94].

R. v. Pratt (1855), 4 E. & B. 860 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 47, 138].

R. v. Graham and Burns (1888), 16 Cox C.C. 420, refd to. [paras. 49, 76].

R. v. Cunningham - see R. v. Graham and Burns.

Randall v. Tarrant, [1955] 1 W.L.R. 255 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 50, 83, 126].

Attorney General v. Antrobus, [1905] 2 Ch. 188, refd to. [paras. 52, 86].

Ellenborough Park, Re; Davies (decd.), Re; Powell v. Maddison, [1956] Ch. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 52, 87].

Lowdens v. Keaveney, [1903] 2 I.R. 82, refd to. [para. 57].

Hubbard v. Pitt, [1976] 1 Q.B. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 57, 129].

Wills' Trustees v. Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Ltd., [1976] S.C. (H.L.) 30, refd to. [para. 72].

Mann v. Brodie (1885), 10 App. Cas. 378, refd to. [para. 73].

Athol (Duke) v. Torrie (1849), 12 D. 328, affd. 1 Macq. 65, refd to. [para. 73].

Macpherson v. Scottish Rights of Way and Recreation Society (1887), 13 App. Cas. 744, refd to. [para. 73].

Llandudno Urban District Council v. Woods, [1899] 2 Ch. 705, refd to. [para. 82].

Fielden v. Cox (1906), 22 T.L.R. 411, refd to. [para. 82].

McAra v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, [1913] S.C. 1059, refd to. [paras. 84, 104].

Aldred v. Miller, [1924] J.C. 117, refd to. [para. 104].

Liddle v. Yorkshire (North Riding) County Council, [1934] 2 K.B. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada (1991), 120 N.R. 241; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 132].

C., Re, [1995] 2 All E.R. 43; 182 N.R. 291 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 140].

C. v. Director of Public Prosecutions - see C., Re.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clerk and Lindsell, The Law of Torts (17th Ed. 1995), p. 861, para. 17-41 [paras. 50, 71].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 21, paras. 1 [para. 71]; 110 [paras. 71, 122].

Megarry, Robert E., and Wade, H.W.R., The Law of Real Property (5th Ed. 1984), p. 844 [para. 71].

Rankine, The Law of Land, Ownership in Scotland (4th Ed. 1909), pp. 325, 327 [para. 72]; 329, 330 [para. 73].

Counsel:

Counsel not disclosed.

Agents:

Agents not disclosed.

This appeal was heard at London, England, before Lord Irvine of Lairg, L.C., Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton of the House of Lords.

On March 4, 1999, the decision of the House of Lords was given and the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Irvine of Lairg, L.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Lord Slynn of Hadley, dissenting - see paragraphs 37 to 61;

Lord Hope of Craighead, dissenting - see paragraphs 62 to 97;

Lord Clyde - see paragraphs 98 to 109;

Lord Hutton - see paragraphs 110 to 146.