| DPP v Ziegler | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Full case name | Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others |
| Decided | 25 June 2021 |
| Citations |
|
| Transcript | Judgment at BAILII |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | [2019] EWHC 71 |
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23 is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
In 2017, the Defence and Security International Arms Fair was held at ExCeL London. [1] Four protestors opposed the arms trade and staged a protest to disrupt the fair and deliveries to the fair. [1] [2] The protest involved the appellants lying down in the middle of the road that approached the ExCeL Centre and locking themselves to lock boxes. [1] The police at the scene attempted to persuade the appellants to remove themselves from the road, using a "five stage process". [1] When that failed, the police arrested the appellants, it then took 90 minutes to remove the lock boxes. [1]
The appellants were charged with wilful obstruction of a highway without lawful authority or excuse, contrary to section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (1980 Act), and were acquitted at trial. The district judge at trial took into consideration the appellants' Article 10 and 11 rights under the ECHR and the proportionality of the police's interference with those rights, and found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the obstruction of the highway was unreasonable. [1] The appellants could therefore rely on the defence of lawful excuse. [1] The respondent appealed by way of case stated—a type of appeal that deals with a question of law, not fact. [1]
The High Court—in its appellate function—allowed the appeal and directed that convictions be entered against the appellants. [1] The High Court held that the trial court's assessment of the proportionality of interfering with the appellant's ECHR rights was wrong because the district judge failed to "strike a fair balance" between the interests of the appellants and the public. [1] The High Court refused the appellants' application for permission to appeal but certified two points of law "of general public importance". [1]
The Supreme Court itself granted permission to appeal, and the parties agreed that the issues in the appeal, as certified by the High Court as points of general public importance, were: [1]
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the convictions of the appellants be set aside. [1]
In answering the first certified question, the Supreme Court held that section 137(1) of the 1980 Act must be read so as to comply with the ECHR. [1] This means that the trial court had to consider whether the police's interference with the appellants' Article 10 and 11 rights by arresting them was proportionate. If found to be disproportionate, the appellant would have a defence of lawful excuse to the underlying criminal offence. [1]
The Supreme Court held that the appellate test for the High Court to apply in appeals by way of case stated, including in this case, was whether the court's conclusion was "one which was reasonably open to it", meaning it was not " Wednesbury irrational or perverse". [1] In this approach, a conclusion of fact would be open to challenge only if it is one that no reasonable court could have reached on the facts, or if there was an error of law that was material to the decision. [1] In accordance with that test, where the statutory defence depends on an assessment of proportionality, the Supreme Court held that "an appeal will lie if there is an error or flaw in the reasoning on the face of the case which undermines the cogency of the conclusion on proportionality". [1]
The Supreme Court held that the appellate test to apply in appeals such as this was whether the decision of the trial court was one that no reasonable court would have made or whether there was an error of law material to the decision. [1] Further, where proportionality was concerned, if there were an error in the trial court's reasoning that undermined the cogency of the conclusion on proportionality, an appeal would be allowed. [1]
In answering the second certified question, the Supreme Court reviewed European case law that showed that intentional disruption and obstructive action by protestors benefits from the protections of Article 10 and 11. However, the extent of the disruption and whether it is intentional are factors to consider in assessing proportionality. [1] The Supreme Court set out other factors that were relevant for the trial court to consider when evaluating proportionality, including whether the action was intended to be peaceful, whether it involved the commission of an offence other than the section 137 offence, whether it was carefully targeted at vehicles heading to the ExCeL Centre, and whether it was of limited duration. [1]
As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court was right to consider those factors when assessing the proportionality of the interference with the appellant's ECHR rights and in finding the interference to be disproportionate. [1] Further, the trial court made no error or flaw in its reasoning such as would undermine the cogency of its conclusion on proportionality in favour of the appellants. [1]
Following the ruling in Ziegler, several cases were discontinued by the prosecution or given uncontested appeals. [3]
United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.
An appellate court, commonly called a court of appeal(s), appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In much of the world, court systems are divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts, often on a discretionary basis. A particular court system's supreme court is its highest appellate court. Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules.
The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four apex courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.
A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in addition to numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.
Discretionary jurisdiction is a power that allows a court to engage in discretionary review. This power gives a court the authority to decide whether to hear a particular case brought before it. Typically, courts of last resort and intermediate courts in a state or country will have discretionary jurisdiction. In contrast, the lower courts have no such power. For this reason, the lower courts must entertain any case properly filed, so long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the questions of law and in personam jurisdiction over the parties to the case. Customarily a court is granted the power by rule, statute, or constitutional provision. When a constitutional provision establishes the court's power, it will have more limitations on its screening process. The usual intent behind granting power through a constitutional provision is to maintain decisional uniformity.
In English criminal law, public nuisance is a act, condition or thing that is illegal because it interferes with the rights of the general public.
An interlocutory appeal occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. The rules governing how and when interlocutory appeals may be taken vary by jurisdiction.
A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56 is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords. It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable. The defining feature of such a defence is that the situation is not caused by another person and that the accused was in genuine risk of immediate harm or danger.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, right to silence and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of South Carolina.
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals. This case is in contrast to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which grants criminal defendants the right to refuse counsel for trial purposes.
Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 is a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the way in which police in Scotland detained suspects was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and was therefore unlawful in terms of the Scotland Act 1998.
In law, post conviction refers to the legal process which takes place after a trial results in conviction of the defendant. After conviction, a court will proceed with sentencing the guilty party. In the American criminal justice system, once a defendant has received a guilty verdict, they can then challenge a conviction or sentence. This takes place through different legal actions, known as filing an appeal or a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The goal of these proceedings is exoneration, or proving a convicted person innocent. If lacking representation, the defendant may consult or hire an attorney to exercise his or her legal rights.
Rex v Zikalala is an important case in South African criminal law, heard on February 27, 1953. Zikalala, the appellant, had been charged and convicted of the culpable homicide in causing the death of one Alpheus Tsele. On appeal to the Appellate Division, he successfully argued self-defence.
Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .