This is an interesting case that much effort has been placed on analysis by different jurists. A panel of the Supreme Court (UK) agreed to hear the Appeal of the Appellants (Ziegler and others) on 3 Dec 2019. By an agreed statement of facts (both parties agreed that there were two points of law for the Court to consider) there were two points of public interest. By public interest both parties agreed that for the benefit of clarity to the citizens of the UK (the general public may conduct their behavior accordingly). Remember laws 'ought' to be clear so that the reasonable individual may conduct themselves within the parameters of the law (what is allowed by law). A decision on these two points is not only important for giving greater clarity to citizens of the UK but also to provide the authorities (government) on how they 'ought' to handle themselves in relation to protests in the future ( representing the relationship between government and individuals within their jurisdiction).
It all started when a group of individuals in protest of a biennial defence and security fair in the UK blocked a Highway. The Appellants in this Supreme Court decision were charged with obstructing a highway because they felt that it was necessary for their convictions against arms dealing and alleged illegal activities by a certain UK defence contractor. The protesters blocked one lane of a highway leading into the event. Initially, the District court first squashed the convictions that the Divisional court later overturned and then soon after the Supreme Court intervened and upheld the District courts decision. First the District court found the defendants not guilty and then the Divisional court overturning the decision and entering a finding of guilt. The Divisional Court denied the appellants application to Appeal the decision to the Supreme Court after that court directed convictions to sec 137 Highway Act (penalty for willful obstruction of a highway)A simple summary would be that the protestors had their charges dropped then convictions were entered then they were put back to being dropped again..
The importance of the Supreme Court in hearing the case can be thought of as affirming that there were serious questions of Law that needed to be clarified if there was to be a harmony in law. The harmony is how two laws can be read together without one negatively impacting the understanding of the other when citizens are protesting. This action of a court in general depends on a consideration of proportionality in so far how to access to what degree of interference may the government take against restraining freedoms of expression and assembly of citizens.
We can dissect and analyze this case from the perspective of Marxist theory in the sense that the judgement of the court instills confidence in the legal system as it appears to support individual rights. It would first look as if this case was a win win for individual rights; namely freedom of expression and assembly, and can easily portrayed as a case supporting liberal views of protection of individual rights. A Marxist would see it in an alternative view point of how the State ultimately supported the Economic base while at the same time limiting the rights of the individual. Marxist theory is understood as not a theory that speaks much on rights in general and understandably so it would seem more of a debate taken by Dworkin, Mill or Raz. Each view point can be expressed as having two different outcomes of the case and for Marxist it is clear that entire case was about how the State can manipulate a decision to look as if they are supporting the people or general population but in essence they have used coercion to support the arms dealer.
The very fact that the protestors were removed and the event was allowed to go forward is evidence enough that the Base structure was supported over the interests of the protestors for Marxists. The entire process from forcibly removing the protestors too the sizable cost and time for attending court can be seen as a direct result of weight of the State being placed on the protestors while the corporations who represent the base structure had virtual impunity. As for further protests the Court decision on signified clarification that every case must be judged on the facts but there were certain criteria that protestors had to seeming follow if the wanted to attempt similar actions and utilize the defence of lawful excuse. So, the court actually narrowed the instances by affirming that certain criteria must be examined by future courts when protests on a highway take place. It was not that the Court found in favor of all protesting that might take advantage of blocking highways; there were certain criteria that was laid down which might in the future not support but limit protesting.
The fact that Protestors may be limited allows future State intervention in the publics actions to be better controlled and thus limiting the effects protests may actually have. What must not be forgotten is that people utilize protesting to disrupt purposely and the greater the effects of the protestors may have can support the change that they support. In this case it would seem that the prevention of War and hence the furtherance of a moral high ground was the stance of the protestors. Clearly, any lessening of individual rights for the grater good of society has had great debate among liberalists who may support a greater utility is found in supporting against war than promoting it. The issue of illegal arms manufacturing itself while it seems to the observer as an important point that the court would take up they did not considered. Likely, for different reasons the courts did or would not take the allegation by the protestors but none the less it would seem that by placing the entire scope of the long process of prosecuting the case placed a burden on the protestors and not the Arms company.
If a case is to appealed to a higher Court on issues of law; Edwards v Bairstow [1956] affirmed by Supreme Court.
Comments