Keep Streets Live Campaign Ltd v London Borough of Camden
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court dealt with a judicial review case where the London Borough of Camden’s policy to regulate busking through licensing was challenged. The advocacy organization claimed the policy was legally and constitutionally flawed. The court granted permission but dismissed the application, enforcing Camden’s policy, emphasizing sufficient certainty and proportionality in accordance with the Human Rights Act. The legal principles established involved standards of legal certainty, the requisite certainty for criminal law, necessity and proportionality in human rights context, nuisance standards, and the discretion in regulatory decisions.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson :
Introduction
This is a claim for judicial review of a decision of the London Borough of Camden (the Defendant) made on 11 th November 2013 to adopt part V of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 and to approve a street entertainment policy (the policy) the effect of which is to licence busking in the area of Camden.
The Claimant is a not for profit advocacy organisation which campaigns nationally and locally for policies that support the use of shared public spaces for informal performances of music and other forms of art. It seeks to offer advice, support and training to street artists and performers from a wide variety of backgrounds on the best way to interact with other users of shared public spaces and public officials. The claimant offers support also to local authorities who wish to develop co-operation with street artists and performers. It supports appropriate and focused action by authorities to deal with people and situations when entertainment in public places can be said to cross the thresholds of impermissibility as set by law.
The challenge has been condensed into three grounds. They are
that the definition of busking in the policy is too wide so that it is impossible to know with sufficient clarity and certainty whether a street entertainment licence is needed.
that the policy has been adopted on an unlawful basis
that the policy breaches the Human Rights Act in that it seeks to introduce a scheme which is disproportionate.
To those grounds the Defendant contends
that the definition of busking is in conformity with primary legislation;
that the claimant has misunderstood the statutory scheme. Section 33 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) does not set preconditions for licensing the whole of the Defendant’s area. But, in any event, the Defendant made its decision on sufficient evidence and had reason to believe that the inconvenience/nuisance caused by busking was, or was likely to be, borough wide.
that the licensing scheme adopted by the Defendant is an entirely proportionate means of addressing concerns raised by busking in the Camden area. It is a ‘light touch’ response which has minimal interference with the busker’s freedom of expression.
The papers came before Mrs. Justice Carr on the 6 th January 2014 when she gave case management directions. By consent, on the 10 th January 2014, the parties agreed to vary that order to include provision for a rolled up permission a