In the House of Lords
DPP v Dewey
In March 2006, Parliament enacted the (fictional) Prevention of Litter Act 2006 (‘the Act’). Section 10 states:
(1) It is an offence for any person to distribute leaflets or other printed material on public highways in the designated area.
(2) It is a defence for a person accused of an offence under subsection (1) to show that he had legitimate reason to distribute leaflets in the designated area.
(3) The promotion of any religious belief is not a legitimate reason under subsection (2).
The ‘designated area’ is defined under statutory instrument to include any area within 1 km of Whitehall.
During the passage of the Bill through Parliament, the Home Secretary stated that the Bill was necessary in response to a recent (fictional) incident in Whitehall when members of the Loopies, a religious cult, descended on Whitehall and distributed over 50,000 leaflets warning of an imminent plague of giant snails. The resulting litter caused long traffic jams and some pedestrians slipped on the leaflets and injured themselves. It took the local authority 3 days to clear all the leaflets from Whitehall. The Home Secretary signed a statement of compatibility in accordance with s. 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
On a Friday morning in May 2006, the police were alerted to the presence of Mr Dewey, who was distributing leaflets outside the gates to Downing Street. The leaflets promoted the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mr Dewey was convicted before a District Judge of the offence of distribution of leaflets, contrary to s. 10 of the Act. He appealed to the Divisional Court by way of case stated.
In his statement of case, the District Judge indicated that Mr Dewey was a devout Jehovah’s Witness, and that the religion requires its adherents to proselytize. However, in view of s. 10(3) of the Act, the District Judge disregarded these facts in convicting Mr Dewey.
The Divisional Court overturned the conviction. Craswell J held that:
s. 10(3) of the Act infringes the right to manifest one’s belief guaranteed in Article 9(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The interference is disproportionate and cannot be justified under Article 9(2). The Convention requires the State authorities to allow persons to distribute leaflets to promote their religious beliefs.
In line with the wide powers of interpretation under s. 3 of the HRA 1998 as expounded in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, it is possible for the court to read down s. 10(3). Although distributing leaflets for the promotion of religion is not a defence under s. 10(3) it is a legitimate reason, and a legitimate reason is a defence by virtue of s. 10(2). The District Judge should therefore have directed himself to acquit Mr Dewey if he was satisfied that Mr Dewey was distributing leaflets for the promotion of religion.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has obtained leave to appeal against these findings.
