Bobby Talalay appears in significant case about the interrelationship between the power of arrest and the right to protest

28 January 2025

Bobby Talalay was instructed by the Respondent in Sleeper v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 151 (KB). The claim has received national media interest.

Mr Sleeper is Christian evangelist. On 23 June 2007, just 20 days after the London Bridge and Borough terrorist attacks, Mr Sleeper stood outside Southwark Cathedral holding up two signs that said ‘Love Muslims / Ban Islam / The Religion of Terror’ and ‘#Love Muslims / Hate Islam/ Jesus is Love + Peace’. After being told about this by a member of public, who found it distressing, two police officers went to speak with Mr Sleeper to discuss the signs. Following a 45-minute conversation about the law on the right to freedom of expression and the right to protest, as well as criminal offences under the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), Mr Sleeper was arrested under s.5 POA, detained and his signs confiscated.

Mr Sleeper sued the Metropolitan Police for damages for false imprisonment and for breaches of his rights under article 9 (freedom of religion) article 10 (freedom of expression) and article 11 (freedom of assembly). Following trial, the claim was dismissed in its entirety by the court.

Mr Sleeper appealed on a number of grounds, perhaps the most significant of which was whether the judge erred in how to approach the power of arrest under s.24 PACE when an officer was arresting a person purportedly exercising their right to protest. The case raised the interesting and important point of what a police officer has to do or think when dealing with a suspected offender who is said to be exercising their human rights (in this case, although the Court found article 9 was not engaged, articles 10 and 11 were).

The Appellant contended that the arresting officer had to demonstrate that the arrest was ‘proportionate’ and/or that the Court had to undertake a ‘super compliance’ exercise when considering the lawfulness of an arrest of a person arrested in the course of protesting. The Court rejected that approach and accepted the Respondent’s argument that the only impact of the HRA on the s.24 test for arrest was in whether, having in mind the right to protest, it was reasonable for the officer to suspect that the conduct in question ‘crossed the line’ so as to make it criminal. No further proportionality exercise was required by either the officer or the Court. The Court upheld the approach taken by the trial judge that both the officer and the Court had to account for a protestor’s convention rights in considering whether the statutory test for arrest was made out as to whether it was reasonable to suspect an offence had been committed, but that the HRA did not import any additional tests for either the officer or the Court to satisfy.

Bobby has extensive experience of acting on behalf of police forces and other organisations in complex human rights matters, false imprisonment claims, civil data protection and privacy litigation, other areas such as claims for assault, stress at work, malicious prosecution, human rights, and other civil actions.


Related barristers

Robert Talalay

Call 2010

Related areas

Police Law

Search

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and event updates.

Subscribe

Popular

16 April 2024

Chambers is delighted to announce that Head of Chambers, Jason Beer KC is one of only…

Discover more

14 February 2022

The first hearings of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry commenced today.  Previously a non-statutory…

Discover more

19 December 2023

A message from Head of Chambers, Jason Beer KC, looking back at the past 12…

Discover more
Affiliations

 

Affiliations

Portfolio Builder

Select the practice areas that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)