PICKETING (AMENDMENT) (Hansard, 5 August 1975)

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law in respect of picketing otherwise than in the course of industrial disputes. It has long been the right of British people to meet, to demonstrate and to protest against abuses whether at home or abroad and to do so in a manner which is peaceable and does not create any risk of a breach of the law. As a result of a deplorable majority decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Hubbard v. Pitt, which became well known because it involved the picketing of estate agents' offices in Islington, this important safety valve of our society has been largely sealed.

The Bill has no part to play concerning the criminal law, because the criminal law is designed, effectively or otherwise, to deal with the minimum standards required by society in connection with peaceable picketing. The great danger that has been caused by the decision in Hubbard v. Pitt is that a private individual or group of individuals can now go to the court and obtain an injunction to restrain people, on an interim basis until the hearing of a case, from placarding, demonstrating or showing their disgust in any lawful and peaceable way in connection with any kind of complaint. The type of complaints which are normally the subject of demonstrations are extremely well known. They range from protests against Government activity, although not, of course, in connection with this Government, to the behaviour of foreign authorities. The Islington case was a typical example because the people were protesting against changing the nature of an area by the behaviour of particular estate agents. Had the case come to trial it might have been found to be right or wrong. However, the demonstrations were halted in their tracks as could any future demonstrations be halted, so that by the time the case comes to trial which may be in one, two or three years, the purpose of the protest and the cause of the demonstration will have passed.

Briefly, the decision in the case concerned which I seek to have implemented as law is that of Lord Denning. the 254 Master of the Rolls. That will not surprise anyone who knows the views of that very great judge. I am happy to pay tribute to Lord Denning who, although he has been the scourge of law students for a generation, has produced more compassionate, intelligent, and, probably, dissenting judgments than any other judge who has been on the bench this century. He sums up the matter in a paragraph. He referred to the Court of Common Council decision after the demonstration at St. Peter's Fields, Manchester, in 1819 where the court affirmed the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances". Lord Denning then said: Such is the right of assembly. So also is the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern. As long as all is done peaceably and in good order, without threats or incitement to violence or obstruction to traffic, it is not prohibited. He then stressed what he called the need for peace and good order and said: Only too often violence may break out: and then it should be firmly handled and severely punished. But so long as good order is maintained, the right to demonstrate must be preserved. Lord Denning then quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice Scarman who was asked to recommend after the Red Lion Square disorders that a positive right to demonstrate should be enacted". Lord Justice Scarman said that new law to establish this right was unnecessary: The right, of course, exists, subject only to limits required by the need for good order and the passage of traffic". Finally, Lord Denning, referring to The Sunday Times dispute over thali-domide, said that the committee considered that the issues were a legitimate matter for public comment". The report recognised that it was important to maintain the freedom of protest on issues of public concern". Lord Denning concluded: It is time for the courts to recognise this too. They should not interfere by interlocutory injunction with the right to demonstrate and to protest any more than they interfere with the right of free speech; provided that everything is done peaceably and in good order. 255 This ringing declaration of the duty of the court to protect the right of the individual to demonstrate was overruled by the decision of Lord Denning's two brother judges. The purpose of this Bill is to reinstate that right.

I appreciate that at this stage in the Session the Bill can only be an indication of what I hope will be the unanimous feeling of the House on the matter and that, as a result, it will not be opposed. It will then be an indication to the courts, if the case goes further, and certainly to this House, that, if the law is to be interpreted in the way in which it has been interpreted, that law is bad and must be changed in order that this safety valve for British society may be properly and fully reopened.