PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 2 November 1998, within the three-month period laid down by former Articles 32 § 1 and 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 25594/94) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 by two United Kingdom nationals, Mr Joseph Hashman and Ms Wanda Harrup, on 19 August 1994. The applicants were represented by Mr J. Bate, a solicitor practising in Woking. The Commission’s request referred to former Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 10 of the Convention.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 § 4 of Protocol No. 11 taken together with Rules 100 § 1 and 24 § 6 of the Rules of Court, a panel of the Grand Chamber decided on 20 January 1999 that the case would be examined by the Grand Chamber of the Court. The Grand Chamber included ex officio Sir Nicolas Bratza, the judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4), Mr L. Wildhaber, the President of the Court, Mrs E. Palm, Vice-President of the Court, and Mr J.-P. Costa and Mr M. Fischbach, Vice-Presidents of Sections (Article 27 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 §§ 3 and 5 (a)). The other members appointed to complete the Grand Chamber were Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo, Mr G. Bonello, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr P. Kūris, Mr R. Türmen, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mrs V. Strážnická, Mr P. Lorenzen, Mr V. Butkevych, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr R. Maruste and Mrs S. Botoucharova (Rule 24 § 3). Subsequently Sir Nicolas Bratza, who had taken part in the Commission’s examination of the case, withdrew from sitting in the Grand Chamber (Rule 28). On 13 May 1999 the Government of the United Kingdom (“the Government”) appointed Lord Reed to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). Later Mr Makarczyk, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case, was replaced by Mr J. Casadevall (Rule 24 § 5 (b)).

In accordance with the President’s decision, a hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 23 June 1999. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr M. Eaton, Agent, Mr J. Morris QC, Attorney General, Mr R. Singh, Ms M. Demetriou, Counsel, Ms C. Stewart, Mr S. Bramley, Home Office, Advisers; (b) for the applicants Mr P. Codner, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Codner and Mr Morris.

THE FACTS

I. the circumstances of the case

On 3 March 1993 the applicants blew a hunting horn and engaged in hallooing with the intention of disrupting the activities of the Portman Hunt. A complaint was made to the Gillingham magistrates that the applicants should be required to enter into a recognisance with or without sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour pursuant to the Justices of the Peace Act 1361.

The applicants were bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in the sum of 100 pounds sterling for twelve months on 7 September 1993. They appealed to the Crown Court, which heard their appeals on 22 April 1994 at Dorchester.

The Crown Court, comprising a Crown Court judge and two magistrates, found that the applicants had not committed any breach of the peace and that their conduct had not been likely to occasion a breach of the peace. It found the following facts: “(a) On 3rd March, 1993, Edward Lycett Green, a joint Master of the Portman Hunt, saw the [applicants] in the environs of the Ranston Estate, and heard the sound of a hunting horn being blown from that position. Later, at about 1.15 p.m., he saw the [applicants’] car on Iwerne Hill and again heard the sound of a hunting horn being blown. On that occasion he also heard [the second applicant] hallooing. Some hounds were drawn towards the [applicants], and hunt staff had to be deployed to recover them. (b) At about 1.45 p.m., a solitary hound ran out of Rolf’s Wood along the Higher Shaftesbury Road. It suddenly, and for no apparent reason, ran across the road and was killed by a lorry travelling in the direction of Blandford Forum. (c) At about 3.45 p.m., [the first applicant] stated to a police constable that he had been blowing a hunting horn, but nowhere near where the hound was killed. The police officer seized the hunting horn. (d) Iwerne Hill is about a mile from where the hound was killed, and, at the time of its death, it was travelling away from the hunt and away from Iwerne Hill. (e) On their own admissions each [applicant] was a hunt saboteur. [The first applicant] admitted that he had blown the horn and [the second applicant] that she shouted at hounds. Their object was to distract hounds from hunting and killing foxes. (f) An expert, a Mr A. Downes, told us that he had observed hunts for many years and had frequently seen hounds running loose on the road away from the main pack. In his opinion, this caused danger to hounds and to other users of the road.”

On the basis of these facts, the Crown Court was of the following opinion: “(a) The [applicants’] behaviour had been a deliberate attempt to interfere with the Portman Hunt and to take hounds out of the control of the huntsman and the whippers‑in. (b) That in this respect the actions of the [applicants] were unlawful, and had exposed hounds to danger. (c) That there had been no violence or threats of violence on this occasion, so that it could not be said that any breach of the peace had been committed or threatened. (d) That the [applicants] would repeat their behaviour unless it were checked by the sanction of a bind over. (e) That the [applicants’] conduct had been contra bonos mores. (f) That R. v. Howell [see below] was distinguishable in that it related to the power of arrest for breach of the peace, which could only be exercised if there was violence or the immediate likelihood of violence. (g) That the power to bind over ‘to keep the peace and be of good behaviour’ was wider than the power of arrest and could be exercised whenever it was proved either that there had been a breach of the peace or that there had been behaviour contra bonos mores, since a breach of the peace is ex hypothesi contra bonos mores, and the words ‘to keep the peace’ added nothing to what was required of the defendant by the words ‘to be of good behaviour’.”

The court noted that neither the Law Commission’s report on binding over nor the European Convention was part of domestic law.

The Crown Court judge agreed to state a case to the High Court, but legal aid for the case stated was refused on 5 August 1994. The applicants’ appeals against the decisions were dismissed on 19 September 1994. ii. relevant domestic law and practice

A. Breach of the peace and conduct contra bonos mores

Breach of the peace – which does not constitute a criminal offence (R. v. County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1948] 1 King’s Bench Reports 670) – is a common-law concept of great antiquity. However, as Lord Justice Watkins, giving judgment in the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Howell ([1982] 1 Queen’s Bench Reports 416), remarked in January 1981: “A comprehensive definition of the term ‘breach of the peace’ has very rarely been formulated …” (p. 426) He continued: “We are emboldened to say that there is likely to be a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (p. 427)

In a subsequent case before the Divisional Court (Percy v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1995] 1 Weekly Law Reports 1382), Mr Justice Collins followed Howell in holding that there must be a risk of violence before there could be a breach of the peace. However, it was not essential that the violence be perpetrated by the defendant, as long as it was established that the natural consequence of his behaviour would be to provoke violence in others: “The conduct in question does not itself have to be disorderly or a breach of the criminal law. It is sufficient if its natural consequence would, if persisted in, be to provoke others to violence, and so some actual danger to the peace is established.” (p. 1392)

In Nicol and Selvanayagam v. Director of Public Prosecutions ([1996] 160 Justice of the Peace Reports 155), Lord Justice Simon Brown stated: “… the court would surely not find a [breach of the peace] proved if any violence likely to have been provoked on the part of others would be not merely unlawful but wholly unreasonable – as of course, it would be if the defendant’s conduct was not merely lawful but such as in no material way interfered with the other’s rights. A fortiori, if the defendant was properly exercising his own basic rights, whether of assembly, demonstration or free speech.” (p. 163)

Behaviour contra bonos mores has been described as “conduct which has the property of being wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens” (per Lord Justice Glidewell in Hughes v. Holley [1988] 86 Criminal Appeal Reports 130).

In R. v. Sandbach, ex parte Williams ([1935] 2 King’s Bench Reports 192) the Divisional Court rejected the view that a person could not be bound over to be of good behaviour when there was no reason to apprehend a breach of the peace. As in the case of binding over to keep the peace, there had to be some reason to believe that there might be a repetition of the conduct complained of before an order to be of good behaviour could be made.

B. Binding over

Magistrates have powers to “bind over” under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”), under common law and under the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 (“the 1361 Act”). A binding-over order requires the person bound over to enter into a “recognisance”, or undertaking secured by a sum of money fixed by the court, to keep the peace or be of good behaviour for a specified period of time. If he or she refuses to consent to the order, the court may commit him or her to prison, for up to six months in the case of an order made under the 1980 Act or for an unlimited period in respect of orders made under the 1361 Act or common law. If an order is made but breached within the specified time period, the person bound over forfeits the sum of the recognisance. A binding-over order is not a criminal conviction (R. v. County of London Quarter Sessions, ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1948] 1 King’s Bench Reports 670).

1. Binding over under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

Section 115 of the 1980 Act provides: “(1) The power of a magistrates’ court on the complaint of any person to adjudge any other person to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour towards the complainant shall be exercised by order on complaint. … (3) If any person ordered by a magistrates’ court under subsection (1) above to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour fails to comply with the order, the court may commit him to custody for a period not exceeding 6 months or until he sooner complies with the order.”

2. Binding over at common law and under the Justices of the Peace Act 1361

In addition to the statutory procedure, magistrates have powers to bind over at common law and under the 1361 Act. These powers allow magistrates, at any stage in proceedings before them, to bind over any participant in the proceedings if they consider that the conduct of the person concerned is such that there might be a breach of the peace or that his or her behaviour has been contra bonos mores. It is not open to the justices to attach specific conditions to a binding-over order (Ayu [1959] 43 Criminal Appeal Reports 31; Goodlad v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1979] Criminal Law Review 51).

3. Appeals

An order of the magistrates to require a person to enter into a recognisance to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour can be appealed either to the High Court or the Crown Court. An appeal to the High Court is limited to questions of law, and proceeds by way of “case stated”. An appeal to the Crown Court, under the Magistrates’ Courts (Appeals from Binding-Over Orders) Act 1956, section 1, proceeds as a rehearing of all issues of fact and law.

4. The Law Commission’s report on binding over

In response to a request by the Lord Chancellor to examine binding-over powers, the Law Commission (the statutory law reform body for England and Wales) published in February 1994 its report entitled “Binding Over”, in which it found that: “4.34 We regard reliance on contra bonos mores as certainly, and breach of the peace as very arguably, contrary to elementary notions of what is required by the principles of natural justice when they are relied on as definitional grounds justifying the making of a binding-over order. Because an order binding someone to be of good behaviour is made in such wide terms, it fails to give sufficient indication to the person bound over of the conduct which he or she must avoid in order to be safe from coercive sanctions … … 6.27 We are satisfied that there are substantial objections of principle to the retention of binding over to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour. These objections are, in summary, that the conduct which can be the ground for a binding‑over order is too vaguely defined; that binding-over orders when made are in terms which are too vague and are therefore potentially oppressive; that the power to imprison someone if he or she refuses to consent to be bound over is anomalous; that orders which restrain a subject’s freedom can be made without the discharge of the criminal, or indeed any clearly defined, burden of proof; and that witnesses, complainants or even acquitted defendants can be bound over without adequate prior information of any charge or complaint against them.” (Law Commission Report no. 222) The Law Commission recommended abolition of the power to bind over. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The applicants applied to the Commission on 19 August 1994. They alleged violations of Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

The Commission declared the application (no. 25594/94) partly admissible on 26 June 1996. In its report of 6 July 1998 (former Article 31 of the Convention), it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (twenty-five votes to four). The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the two dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment. FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

The Government asked the Court to find that the facts of the case disclosed no breach of the Convention. The applicants invited the Court to find a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and to award costs.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e1
001-58365_a8_em1
DATETIME
QUASI
2 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e2
001-58365_a8_em2
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e3
001-58365_a8_em3
CODE
DIRECT
25594/94
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e4
001-58365_a8_em4
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e5
001-58365_a8_em5
DEM
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e6
001-58365_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Joseph Hashman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e7
001-58365_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Wanda Harrup
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e8
001-58365_a8_em8
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e9
001-58365_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Bate
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e5
001-58365_a8_em10
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e10
001-58365_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
20 January 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e11
001-58365_a8_em12
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e5
001-58365_a8_em13
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e12
001-58365_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L. Wildhaber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e13
001-58365_a8_em15
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs E. Palm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e14
001-58365_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J.-P. Costa
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e15
001-58365_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Fischbach
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e16
001-58365_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e17
001-58365_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr G. Bonello
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e18
001-58365_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Makarczyk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e19
001-58365_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Kūris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e20
001-58365_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Türmen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e21
001-58365_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs F. Tulkens
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e22
001-58365_a8_em24
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs V. Strážnická
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e23
001-58365_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Lorenzen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e24
001-58365_a8_em26
PERSON
QUASI
Mr V. Butkevych
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e25
001-58365_a8_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A.B. Baka
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e26
001-58365_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Maruste
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e27
001-58365_a8_em29
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs S. Botoucharova
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e11
001-58365_a8_em30
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir Nicolas Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e28
001-58365_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
13 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e5
001-58365_a8_em32
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e29
001-58365_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Reed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e18
001-58365_a8_em34
PERSON
QUASI
001-58365_a8_em20
Mr Makarczyk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e30
001-58365_a8_em35
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Casadevall
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e31
001-58365_a8_em36
ORG
QUASI
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e32
001-58365_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
23 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e33
001-58365_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Eaton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e34
001-58365_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Morris QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e35
001-58365_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Singh
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e36
001-58365_a8_em41
PERSON
QUASI
Ms M. Demetriou
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e37
001-58365_a8_em42
PERSON
QUASI
Ms C. Stewart
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e38
001-58365_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Bramley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e39
001-58365_a8_em44
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Codner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e39
001-58365_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
001-58365_a8_em44
Mr Codner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e34
001-58365_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
001-58365_a8_em39
Mr Morris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e40
001-58365_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
3 March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e41
001-58365_a8_em48
LOC
QUASI
Portman Hunt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e42
001-58365_a8_em49
ORG
QUASI
Gillingham magistrates
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e43
001-58365_a8_em50
QUANTITY
QUASI
100 pounds sterling
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e44
001-58365_a8_em51
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e45
001-58365_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
7 September 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e47
001-58365_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
22 April 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e48
001-58365_a8_em55
LOC
QUASI
Dorchester
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em57
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e49
001-58365_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
3rd March, 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e50
001-58365_a8_em59
PERSON
QUASI
Edward Lycett Green
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e41
001-58365_a8_em60
LOC
QUASI
Portman Hunt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e51
001-58365_a8_em61
ORG
QUASI
Ranston Estate
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e52
001-58365_a8_em62
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1.15 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e53
001-58365_a8_em63
LOC
QUASI
Iwerne Hill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e54
001-58365_a8_em64
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1.45 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e55
001-58365_a8_em65
LOC
QUASI
Rolf’s Wood
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e56
001-58365_a8_em66
LOC
QUASI
Higher Shaftesbury Road
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e57
001-58365_a8_em67
LOC
QUASI
Blandford Forum
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e58
001-58365_a8_em68
DATETIME
NO_MASK
3.45 p.m.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e53
001-58365_a8_em69
LOC
QUASI
Iwerne Hill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e53
001-58365_a8_em70
LOC
QUASI
Iwerne Hill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e59
001-58365_a8_em71
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Downes
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e41
001-58365_a8_em73
LOC
QUASI
Portman Hunt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e60
001-58365_a8_em74
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Howell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e61
001-58365_a8_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e62
001-58365_a8_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
5 August 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e63
001-58365_a8_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e64
001-58365_a8_em79
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e65
001-58365_a8_em80
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1948
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e66
001-58365_a8_em81
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Justice Watkins
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e60
001-58365_a8_em82
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Howell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e67
001-58365_a8_em83
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1982
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e68
001-58365_a8_em84
DATETIME
NO_MASK
January 1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e69
001-58365_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Divisional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e70
001-58365_a8_em86
MISC
NO_MASK
Percy v. Director of Public Prosecutions
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e71
001-58365_a8_em87
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e72
001-58365_a8_em88
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1382
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e73
001-58365_a8_em89
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Justice Collins
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58365_a8_e74
001-58365_a8_em90
PERSON
QUASI
Howell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e75
001-58365_a8_em91
MISC
NO_MASK
Nicol and Selvanayagam v. Director of Public Prosecutions
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e76
001-58365_a8_em92
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e77
001-58365_a8_em93
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Justice Simon Brown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e78
001-58365_a8_em94
PERSON
QUASI
Justice Glidewell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e79
001-58365_a8_em95
MISC
NO_MASK
Hughes v. Holley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e80
001-58365_a8_em96
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e81
001-58365_a8_em97
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Sandbach, ex parte Williams
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e82
001-58365_a8_em98
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1935
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e69
001-58365_a8_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
Divisional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e83
001-58365_a8_em100
ORG
NO_MASK
Magistrates’ Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e84
001-58365_a8_em101
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e85
001-58365_a8_em102
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. County of London Quarter Sessions, ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e65
001-58365_a8_em103
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1948
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e83
001-58365_a8_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Magistrates’ Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e86
001-58365_a8_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
6 months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e87
001-58365_a8_em106
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1959
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e88
001-58365_a8_em107
MISC
NO_MASK
Goodlad v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e89
001-58365_a8_em108
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e61
001-58365_a8_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e61
001-58365_a8_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e46
001-58365_a8_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58365_a8_e83
001-58365_a8_em113
ORG
NO_MASK
Magistrates’ Courts
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e90
001-58365_a8_em114
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e91
001-58365_a8_em115
LOC
NO_MASK
Wales
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e92
001-58365_a8_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e93
001-58365_a8_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Law Commission Report
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e8
001-58365_a8_em118
DATETIME
QUASI
19 August 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e94
001-58365_a8_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
Articles 5
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e3
001-58365_a8_em120
CODE
DIRECT
25594/94
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e95
001-58365_a8_em121
DATETIME
QUASI
26 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58365_a8_e96
001-58365_a8_em122
DATETIME
QUASI
6 July 1998
Joseph Hashman
GBR
GRANDCHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Joseph Hashman