PUBLIC LAW Master Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

PUBLIC LAW Master - Case Study Example This is more so, under envisaged conditions where there are sufficient reasons to believe that the assembly may cause damage to property and significant interruption of life, besides the risks accruing to people moving around the vicinity of the assembly. "A person who organises a public assembly and who knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed under the section is guilty of an offence. A police officer can then arrest without warrant any person he reasonably suspects is committing any of the offences under the section" (United Kingdom. 2006). Further, if the law enforcement authorities are of the considered opinion that the purpose of the said assembly is to instil fear in the minds of the high powered Zimbabwean Government delegation, with a view to force them to do something which they are not bound by law to do, or to compel them to do an act, which is not legally enforceable on them, it is well within the jurisdiction of the law enforcement authorities to place suitable restrictions, as deemed necessary. Again, "it allows the chief officer to impose those conditions he believes necessary to prevent disorder, disruption or intimidation" (Public Order Act 1986. 2004). Restrictions as per Part II of the Act Further, under Part II of the above Act, the police chief is empowered to issue notifications restricting: 1. The Number of people, who may take part in the assembly, 2. The location of the assembly and 3. Its maximum duration. In this case it has been seen that, besides restricting the maximum number of people participating in the Assembly to 20, the notice serves also on relocating the Assembly at least 5 miles from GDXS plc's main gates and restricting the duration of the assembly to 2 hours. Since provisions for these regulatory measures have been delineated in the Act, they could be enforceable through the process of law. Under law, "individuals may so or do whatever they please provided they do not transgress the substantive law or infringe the legal rights of others. We are free to do everything except that which we are forbidden to do by law" (Wadham 2003). Human Rights transgression: However, the chief constable has also added two more regulations which are outside the ambit of this Act and they are, that, there should be no public speeches criticising the Government of Zimbabwe, and, in the event of any counter demonstration, or hostility shown towards ProD, the Simpson District Police reserve the right to cancel the demonstration immediately. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the ProD and its President, Mr. Geoff Edwards to challenge these decisions of the Chief Constable, seeking the right to bar freedom of expression on the part of ProD, and its activists, and also the right to revoke the demonstration. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1998, governs the right of free expression. Under it, it gives" a very important right to hold opinions and express your views singly or in dialogue." Under this Act, the meaning of expression also entails, inter alia, the right to get data from others and also the capacity to express oneself, especially in front of an assembly. (A Guide to