Disabled man fails in discrimination claim against police.

C_steam · 16-08-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

A disabled man who was banned from protesting at the G8 summit in Breadsall has failed in his bid to bring a disability discrimination case against police.

Wheelchair bound Doug Paulley arrived in Breadsall on March 17 this year as an anti-G8 protester.

But he said that when he arrived to take part in the "critical mass" protest against world leaders, Derbyshire police told him that, despite the fact they were allowing cyclists to take part, he was not allowed to join in because of his wheelchair.

The Evening Telegraph reported at the time how Derby prepared for an invasion of protesters, with 1,000 officers drafted in from 23 different counties, as well as riot vans, squad cars and bikes to protect the meeting at Breadsall Priory.
At the time, memorials and statues were boarded up, shop windows were barricaded and a huge area of the Market Place was cordoned off with railings to keep crowds at bay - but just a handful of protesters turned up.

Mr Paulley, who has autonomic neuralgic failure, which means he cannot control his body's blood pressure and heartbeat, was in a specialist racing wheelchair on the day.

He had planned to join the group of cyclists who rode from Derby train station to the Market Place.

Mr Paulley (27) wanted to take his disability discrimination case against David Coleman, Derbyshire's Chief Constable, to court and was due to appear at Leeds County Court yesterday.

But he had to withdraw his complaint after he was advised that Derbyshire police had a get-out clause in the Disability Discrimination Act, which said that the act did not apply to the force if it was protecting national security.
Mr Paulley, of Wetherby, West Yorkshire, said: "I took it as far as I could but it became apparent that, if I took it any further, I was likely to get substantial costs awarded against me.

"It does not surprise me, it is clear that the police increasingly have the power to stop protests and people expressing their opinions."
"There were 1,000 police on the streets that day and about 40 protesters, I cannot understand why I was banned."

A Derbyshire police spokesman said: "We are satisfied that action taken by officers at the time in relation to Mr Paulley was both appropriate and lawful.

"Our main priority in relation to the G8 meeting was to make sure ministers could meet without disruption and in safety, and that disruption to people of Derby and Breadsall was kept to a minimum.

"Those people who wished to take part in a lawful protest could do so where possible, as long as their own and other people's safety was not compromised."

Roger Gough · 17-08-2005, 08:46 AM

National security ? Not in Breadsall. National security surely means the security of the nation, not a few politicians in Breadsall. If the Police in Derby are relying on 'National Security' as an excuse, then the able bodied cyclists must have represented a threat to National Security. Why weren't they charged ? (and/or taken to the Tower)

arden forester · 18-08-2005, 11:20 AM

Yes, what National Security. This could be challenged as wrongful arrest if he was arrested or violation of human rights.

Quote:

European Convention on Human Rights
Article 11 - right to freedom of assembly and association
Article 11 protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".

Worth a try. The police were on flimsy ground on National Security. A court case would have got them to prove what they meant!!

kingqueen · 23-08-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Yes, what National Security. This could be challenged as wrongful arrest if he was arrested or violation of human rights.

Worth a try. The police were on flimsy ground on National Security. A court case would have got them to prove what they meant!!

Their defence also stated that they did "not provide a service to the claimant or the public" but instead were "preserving the Queen's peace". Obviously preserving the Queen's peace is not a public service... This means that they provided 1,000 police officers for 40 protestors (according to their defence) costing over £1 million (local paper report) - but they weren't providing a public service. And people not providing a public service are not liable under the Disability Discrimination Act.

My barrister (giving free advice) indicated that this would hold. For various reasons I have now backed out. I feel like I have done the best I can - lots of attention from the press, embarassment, cost and time for the police, with minimum hassle / liability to myself - and hopefully it will make them think twice next time.

Doug (claimant in the action) My homepage

mkpdavies · 23-08-2005, 01:02 PM

Well done Doug! There's no point in getting yourself hammered over it, but you certainly brought the issue to a lot of peoples attention!

kingqueen · 23-08-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Well done Doug! There's no point in getting yourself hammered over it, but you certainly brought the issue to a lot of peoples attention!

Thanks very much.

Just for a laugh, and to **** off the police, I've put their defence online (PDF file, ~120Kb)

mkpdavies · 23-08-2005, 01:22 PM

I take it the warning at the top doesn't bother you troo much!

Good on you. I love seeing people fighting back against a corrupt system. May need some tips when I refuse to have an ID card!

Roger Gough · 23-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Congratulations Doug, good try. It's unfortunate that a public body which used to provide a service to the public is now little more than Bliar's personal army :cry:

Tom Collier · 23-08-2005, 05:49 PM

Well done Doug. Under the Public Order Act 1986 I two or more people can constitute a demonstration, which can be stopped if it has no permission!

23-08-2005, 01:02 PM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Well done Doug! There's no point in getting yourself hammered over it, but you certainly brought the issue to a lot of peoples attention! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

23-08-2005, 01:22 PM	#7 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	I take it the warning at the top doesn't bother you troo much! Good on you. I love seeing people fighting back against a corrupt system. May need some tips when I refuse to have an ID card! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-08-2005, 08:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	National security ? Not in Breadsall. National security surely means the security of the nation, not a few politicians in Breadsall. If the Police in Derby are relying on 'National Security' as an excuse, then the able bodied cyclists must have represented a threat to National Security. Why weren't they charged ? (and/or taken to the Tower)

23-08-2005, 01:37 PM	#8 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	Congratulations Doug, good try. It's unfortunate that a public body which used to provide a service to the public is now little more than Bliar's personal army :cry:

23-08-2005, 05:49 PM	#9 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	Well done Doug. Under the Public Order Act 1986 I two or more people can constitute a demonstration, which can be stopped if it has no permission!