Background
Janet Simon, a Jewish Camden resident, regularly participated in Friday-evening demonstrations organised by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network UK in the Swiss Cottage area of North London. Beginning in October 2023, the protests addressed Israel, Zionism and the treatment of Palestinians. Counter-protests, confrontations, complaints and police interventions followed, and the Metropolitan Police repeatedly imposed conditions under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Simon challenged a decision made on 7 May 2025 that prevented IJAN-UK from assembling within a specified part of Swiss Cottage. She argued that the location was integral to engaging the area’s Jewish community; that the restriction disproportionately interfered with rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that IJAN-UK suffered discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14; and that the police breached the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. After permission was refused on the papers, she renewed her application orally.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Sweeting refused permission to apply for judicial review because none of the three grounds had a realistic prospect of success. Although the claimant’s protected rights were engaged and the protest’s location formed part of its political and religious message, the police had expressly considered those matters. They were entitled to assess the cumulative community impact of recurring protests and counter-protests, including disruption attributable to opposing protesters, and to conclude that the geographic restriction was necessary and proportionate.
The court also found no arguable discrimination or breach of the public sector equality duty. Protesters and counter-protesters were not necessarily comparators because the location and form of a counter-protest depended on the underlying protest. No stand-alone equality assessment was required: the decision materials showed awareness of the participants’ Jewish identity, anti-Zionist beliefs and protected rights. The proposed challenge therefore amounted to disagreement with lawful operational policing judgments, not an arguable public-law error.
Key Takeaways
- Police may consider the cumulative disruption caused by recurring protests and counter-protests when imposing section 14 conditions, even where responsibility for individual incidents is disputed.
- Courts will scrutinise restrictions on peaceful political and religious expression but give weight to experienced officers’ operational assessments of public-order risks and community impact.
- Compliance with the public sector equality duty depends on substance rather than a stand-alone assessment document.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the high threshold for obtaining judicial review of fact-sensitive protest-management decisions. A claimant must identify an arguable legal defect in the police’s proportionality or equality analysis; proposing other possible policing arrangements or disputing the balance struck will not, without more, justify a substantive hearing.