"IndyCamp" loses court battle against eviction order
The independence campaigners who set up camp on land belongng to the Scottish Parliament have lost their fight to prevent the Parliament obtaining a court order for their eviction.
Lord Turnbull in the Court of Session ruled today that there would be no undue interference with the campers' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of speech (article 10) and freedom of assembly (article 11) in upholding the Parliament's rights, and that it was a "selfish or even arrogant approach" for the campers to assert that their rights "should trump both the petitioner’s right to possession and the rights of others to enjoy undisturbed use of the grounds".
The campers, who occupied part of the Parliament's grounds last November and said they would not leave until Scotland became independent, said they would appeal, and hoped to stay in the meantime. The Parliament said its officials would "seek discussions" with the campers to "agree plans for a peaceful removal of the camp".
In court the campers conducted their own case, presenting a series of bizarre arguments involving divine as well as secular authority and the supposed rights of the Scottish people. They attempted to call the Queen as a witness and accused Lord Turnbull of "blasphemy".
Lord Turnbull chose to base his decision on whether evicting the campers would be a proportionate response with regard to their human rights. Referring to the possibility of contempt of court proceedings for some of the comments made, he stated: "I propose to take a more benign view and not to engage any further procedure."
Counsel for the Parliament, he said, was correct in submitting "that the case law referred to by him supports the proposition that individuals do not have the absolute freedom to choose the manner of the expression of their rights under articles 10 and 11 to the detriment of others. He was also correct in submitting that the case law shows that individuals may stretch their articles 10 and 11 rights too far if they seek to occupy permanently or indefinitely land belonging to third parties even if occupying small areas, posing no threat to public order and even if not causing damage to property".
Lord Turnbull continued by setting out that in continuing their occupation, the campers were interfering with the rights of others. "The information in the affidavits relied upon by the petitioner establishes good reasons for the petitioner seeking the order which it does. That information demonstrates that the respondents have continued to interfere with the rights of others to use the grounds openly. They have caused damage to the grounds themselves in a variety of different ways, their presence is incompatible with the nature of the Parliament’s grounds which are unsuitable for use as a campsite and they have acted as a magnet, or a precedent, for other impermissible use of the grounds. It would obviously be inappropriate and reflect entirely unsuitable use of the grounds of the Parliament if there were a numbers of different groups occupying the grounds. Furthermore, the presence of the camp constituted a significant and obvious obstacle to the proper running of [the state opening of the Parliamen on 2 July] and will do so for other events of a similar nature which may take place in the future."
He concluded: "The interference with the respondents' article 10 and 11 rights which would be caused by granting the order sought is targeted, limited and will not deprive them of the essence of their rights. The balance which has to be struck in light of all of the circumstances I have identified comes down firmly in favour of holding that the interference caused by granting the orders sought is proportionate."