Freedom of assembly In the UK case of R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire,71 the claimants were protesters who were stopped by police while on their way to protest the Iraq war at an airbase. There were no arrests, however the police decided the coaches could not proceed to the protest and escorted them back to London. Freedom of movement and privacy In the Victorian case of DPP v Kaba,73 Mr Kaba, a black man, was a passenger in a vehicle that was subject to a random stop and search by the police. Mr Kaba walked away from the car and the police, without suspecting him of any wrongdoing, followed him while repeatedly asking for his name and address. Mr Kaba refused these requests, used offensive language and protested about racial harassment. He was then arrested for using offensive language and failing to state his name and address. The Supreme Court of Victoria found that while the police did have the power to conduct a random stop and licence check of Mr Kaba, the officers’ subsequent coercive questioning of him disproportionately limited his rights to privacy and freedom of movement under the Victorian Charter and was therefore unlawful. Mr Kaba was made to feel that he could not choose to leave or refuse to co-operate, and this was in breach of Mr Kaba’s Charter rights and Victoria Police’s obligation to act in a way that is proportionate and compatible with human rights. The protesters brought a legal challenge, arguing in part that the police had breached their right to freedom of assembly and association under the UK Human Rights Act.72 On appeal, the House of Lords agreed. It ruled that there had been no imminent threat to a breach of the peace and the police’s decision to limit the protesters was indiscriminate, disproportionate, and therefore unlawful under the UK Human Rights Act. The court issued a declaration that the police’s actions were unlawful. Justice Bell held that, up to a certain point, police questioning does not unlawfully interfere with the rights and freedoms of individuals. Police questioning does unlawfully interfere with these rights and freedoms, however, when the questioning becomes coercive, which is when the individual is made to feel that they cannot choose to leave or refuse to co-operate. In Mr Kaba’s case, the line of permissible questioning had been crossed. The actions of the police infringed rights to freedom of movement and privacy, and the police reasonably could have acted differently in the circumstances. On this basis, Justice Bell held that the coercive questioning of the police was unlawful. Extracted from Human Rights Law Centre, Case summaries, 2014.74 FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 53