The Memorial March and the Narrow Street
A municipality in a divided old town receives an application from a civic group to hold a 45-minute memorial march on a Sunday along a 300-metre street. The route passes a church and a mosque, both listed, and a narrow section with no pavement. The group expects 200 people and proposes stewards. Shopkeepers object to lost trade; a residents' association cites noise and provocation; the police say the route is manageable with a rolling closure but cannot guarantee counter-demonstrators will stay away. The council's legal adviser notes that the municipal code allows permits to be refused only for specified public-safety reasons, not for the message of the event. The council must decide within three days.
1. Identify the constitutional and civic interests on each side, and explain why offensiveness alone is not a lawful ground for refusal.
Read the worked answer
The organisers rely on peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Residents rely on quiet enjoyment of their homes and on public order. Worshippers and heritage users rely on freedom of religion and on access to listed buildings. The state may regulate the time, place and manner of assembly to protect public safety, public order, health and the rights of others.
Offensiveness or disagreement with the message is not a permissible ground because a plural society must tolerate unpopular commemorations. If offence were enough, any group could silence another by objecting. The council may act only on evidence of a concrete risk, such as credible violence, obstruction of emergency access, or inability to separate opposing groups. The legal adviser is right that the municipal code's specified safety reasons set the boundary.
2. Apply a proportionality test: what conditions, if any, should the council attach?
Read the worked answer
Proportionality asks whether the aim is legitimate, whether the measure is suitable, whether it is necessary, and whether it is excessive. A blanket refusal is hard to justify when the police say the route is manageable and the organisers offer stewards.
Conditions should be the least restrictive means: a fixed start and finish time; a rolling road closure; a maximum of 200 participants; trained stewards; police liaison; no amplified sound near the church or mosque; a buffer and separate arrival point for counter-demonstrators; clean-up and insurance. The council should also require a named contact and a pre-event briefing. Refuse only if the police assess that no condition can contain a credible risk.
3. If the council refuses, what remedy is open to the organisers and what would they need to show?
Read the worked answer
The organisers can challenge the refusal as an administrative act before the administrative court, seeking annulment and, if time is short, interim relief. They can also complain to the Ombudsman, though that is slower and not a substitute for urgent court protection.
They must show that the refusal was unlawful, disproportionate, or based on the message rather than on safety. They should document the police assessment, the offer of stewards, and any less restrictive conditions the council rejected. The strongest argument is that conditions could have sufficed. If the refusal was made without reasons, they should also argue a breach of the duty to give reasons and of fair administration.