1991-01-21
ECURITT ORANGT
police buc there would be nɔ prosecution. During the
sit-in in February last year the participants had been
warned in a very casual and friendly manner and the
police officer who gave the warning said it was given as
a matter of formality. What the police officer said
could not by itself amount to a representation of no prosecution.
I shall consider this aspect of the question of representation together with the second limb
of counsel's submission on abuse of process that the practice of no prosecution over a long period of time gives rise to a legitimate expectation that the use of
hand loudhailers and collection of money in public would
not attract prosecution.
Whilst the first argument (on representation)
relates only to the use of loudhailers, the second
argument (on practice) relates to the use of loudhailers
as well as the collection of money.
D1 had taken part in demonstrations and
gatherings since 1985 and used loudhailers for making speeches and collected money. He had been warned by the
police that to do SO without permit
permit was illegal but
never prosecuted.
D2 had been using loudhailers and amplifying
equipment to make speeches for 21 years and never
prosecuted. Similarly he had collected funds in the
past and the police had never interferred with those
collections. Though warned, he became convinced that
the police would never in fact prosecute him.
He
D3 had used a loudhailer and collected money
on many occasions, and had never been prosecuted.
said in evidence that the police attitude had led him to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.