byelaws

Clampers, inventors of byelaws, meet the real law.

Everything But The Girl « POLICE INSPECTOR BLOG Inspector Gadget 2009

That's because the big issue for Human Rights Act nerds here is whether the incompatibility with Convention rights arises only from the byelaws - in which case the Defence Secretary acted unlawfully when making them, and the byelaws can be struck down - or whether the power in section 142 of the 1992 Act, which says ... byelaws may also provide... for the prevention of nuisances, obstructions, encampments, and encroachments on the land...

Archive 2009-02-01 2009

Well, the protesters have won their appeal: Laws LJ and his colleagues see the ban on camping as a clear interference with freedom of expression the government ran a clever argument that the byelaws merely govern the form of protest, rather than striking at the right to protest; but the judges weren't impressed and disproportionate.

Tabernacle v Defence Secretary 2009

Well, the protesters have won their appeal: Laws LJ and his colleagues see the ban on camping as a clear interference with freedom of expression the government ran a clever argument that the byelaws merely govern the form of protest, rather than striking at the right to protest; but the judges weren't impressed and disproportionate.

Archive 2009-02-01 2009

The protest in question is the Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp; and the human rights issue arises because in 2007 the Defence Secretary made byelaws under section 14 of the Military Lands Act 1892 not I think 1992, which is I think a typo in the judgment making it an offence to camp in tents in the "controlled area" around Aldermaston.

Tabernacle v Defence Secretary 2009

The protest in question is the Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp; and the human rights issue arises because in 2007 the Defence Secretary made byelaws under section 14 of the Military Lands Act 1892 not I think 1992, which is I think a typo in the judgment making it an offence to camp in tents in the "controlled area" around Aldermaston.

Archive 2009-02-01 2009

That's because the big issue for Human Rights Act nerds here is whether the incompatibility with Convention rights arises only from the byelaws - in which case the Defence Secretary acted unlawfully when making them, and the byelaws can be struck down - or whether the power in section 142 of the 1992 Act, which says ... byelaws may also provide... for the prevention of nuisances, obstructions, encampments, and encroachments on the land...

Tabernacle v Defence Secretary 2009

The judges must by now though have decided that the byelaws can't under section 3 be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights - and they're obviously right.

Archive 2009-02-01 2009

The judges must by now though have decided that the byelaws can't under section 3 be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights - and they're obviously right.

Tabernacle v Defence Secretary 2009

The challenge to the byelaws succeeded in part, because they would have criminalised putting a jumper down on a bench, but I'm more interested in the failed attempt to argue that making it an offence to camp in a defined area is too vague a prohibition to be legally certain, as camp is left undefined and could mean all kinds of things.

Archive 2008-04-01 2008