OPINION:

Did the PTI’s protest against Qazi Faez Isa in London break English law?

In London, PTI supporters protesting against former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa may have breached English law on harassment and criminal damage. Legal implications hinge on whether actions, like allegedly striking Isa’s car, could be considered reckless or intimidating under UK statutes.

Abdullah Esquire
Abdullah Esquire
The author is a student of common law and politics in the EU.

Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa’s attendance at London’s Middle Temple on 29 October sparked a fervent demonstration by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters, bringing to light a nuanced legal debate about the boundaries of public protest, free expression, and assembly rights under English law. As demonstrators voiced their dissent and attempted to approach Isa’s vehicle, their actions shifted from protected public expression into a grey area that engages various UK statutes.

This incident raises critical questions for legal experts: to what extent are public protests, especially those involving foreign political issues, protected under English law? When does expression cross into potential harassment or public disorder, particularly where high-profile individuals are involved? London, inadvertently becoming a stage for political tensions abroad, has now set a powerful precedent in examining how such international rifts are addressed through British legal frameworks, with particular scrutiny on Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. The unfolding debate illustrates the delicate interplay between the right to protest and the obligation to maintain public order, spotlighting the complexity of balancing these rights in a legal landscape shaped by both local and international considerations.

Let’s dissect this short-lived protest through the eyes of England and Wales’ common law.

Public order considerations

The Public Order Act 1986 remains the core legislative framework guiding protests in England, defining the limits of lawful assembly and establishing parameters under which intervention is justified. While this law supports the right to peaceful demonstration, it explicitly criminalises any actions that escalate into harassment, obstruction, or intimidation. Specifically, Section 4A prohibits “intentional harassment, alarm, or distress,” making it relevant where protesters’ chants, placards, or actions were designed to intimidate or provoke fear in Isa or bystanders.

Further legal limits are set by Section 5, which criminalises disorderly conduct that may alarm or distress others. This section raises questions about the legality of actions by PTI supporters who allegedly blocked Isa’s vehicle, particularly if their conduct was interpreted as an attempt to restrict his freedom of movement or to distress him or those accompanying him. Police officers, observing what could be classified as a “breach of the peace,” are authorised to intervene under the law, underscoring the UK’s prioritisation of public safety during demonstrations involving prominent figures.

Criminal damage

Reports indicating that Isa’s car may have been struck during the protest bring the Criminal Damage Act 1971 into consideration. This statute defines criminal damage as any “intentional or reckless destruction of property,” and is applicable to both minor and significant damage. Even superficial damage to Isa’s vehicle could warrant criminal liability if it is demonstrated that protesters acted recklessly or with intent to harm.

Establishing criminal damage under English law requires the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the demonstrators intended to damage property or acted recklessly in disregarding the potential consequences of their actions. If evidence supports that protesters struck Isa’s vehicle or obstructed its path in a way that posed a safety risk, the law would likely interpret these actions as criminal, opening the door to property damage charges.

Was there an obstruction of police duties?

Where police officers were present to ensure Isa’s safe departure, actions by protesters that impeded their duties could violate Section 89 of the Police Act 1996, which criminalises “wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.” This provision underscores the responsibility of individuals to respect police operations, particularly when public safety or the security of high-profile individuals is at stake.

During high-profile events, any interference with police duties can lead to immediate legal consequences, especially if protesters’ actions hindered officers’ efforts to maintain order or secure Isa’s passage. Legal provisions allow for arrests where interference or obstruction threatens officers’ ability to de-escalate situations, reinforcing the principle that the right to protest must not endanger public or individual safety.

Human Rights Act 1998

Article 10: Freedom of expression

In relation to the PTI protest against Qazi Faez Isa, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 grants the right to hold opinions and express views freely without interference. This right underpins the legal foundation for protest, allowing individuals to publicly voice dissent, criticism, or support on matters of public interest, including political actions and figures. In this context, PTI supporters exercised their rights to publicly express their views on Isa’s judicial legacy.

However, Article 10’s freedom of expression is not an absolute right. English law allows certain restrictions, particularly when expressions may harm public safety, order, or the rights of others. As the protest crossed into intimidation and threatening behaviour, and whilst slogans and chants were clearly intended to alarm or distress, these actions would legally fall outside the protection of Article 10. The court would likely consider the intent and impact of the protesters’ expressions to determine whether their actions remain within lawful boundaries or infringe upon Isa’s right to security and peace.

Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association

Article 11 protects the right to peaceful assembly and association, enabling people to gather and collectively express views in public spaces. For PTI supporters protesting Isa’s appointment as a Middle Temple bencher, this right establishes a fundamental basis for assembly. Yet, Article 11 is similarly limited where assemblies threaten public safety, disturb public order, or interfere with others’ rights.

In this instance, any physical obstruction of Isa’s vehicle or aggressive attempts to approach him would most likely be interpreted as exceeding lawful assembly if deemed disorderly or unsafe. For example, if the protesters’ conduct impeded police efforts to secure Isa’s passage, it may justify lawful intervention or dispersal under public order provisions. Courts would likely assess whether the protest remained peaceful or crossed into unlawful assembly, taking into account the nature and impact of the protest on public order and safety.

In this case, while Articles 10 and 11 protect public expressions and peaceful assembly, actions that exceed these protections—particularly if they involve harassment, obstruction, or property damage—may prompt legal restrictions under English public order law.

Diplomatic considerations

As a former Chief Justice attending an official event in the UK, Isa’s presence carries international weight. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, while primarily concerned with recognised diplomats, underscores the principle of protecting high-profile foreign nationals from threats, harassment, or obstruction.

While Isa does not hold a formal diplomatic role, his appointment as a bencher at Middle Temple positions him as a respected legal figure within an institution of considerable repute. In instances where significant disruption or aggression could impede dignitaries, international and national law encourage authorities to ensure these individuals’ safe passage and prevent escalation.

What the Home Office can address

The protest against Isa places the balance between freedom of assembly and the need for public order under scrutiny, underscoring the boundaries within English law. While peaceful protest remains protected, actions that cause harassment, obstruction, or damage fall outside these protections, especially when directed at high-profile individuals. Legal provisions in the UK prioritise both freedom of expression and public safety, making clear that rights to protest must respect public order boundaries to avoid legal intervention.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

spot_img

The headlines

The latest stories from The Thursday Times, straight to your inbox.

Thursday PULSE™

More from The Thursday Times

error: