Con and add
Order Description
The Bruddersfield branch committee of RSF is concerned about the following issues in relation to their members: Charlie was arrested following a protest outside Bruddersfield Town Hall amd has been held in custody for three months without trial and has been denied access to legal advice. She complains about being very cold due to a lack of heating in her cell and being given a meat based diet even though she has made it clear her religion requires her to be a vegan. Charlie was also denied the right to vote in recent local elections for an RSF candidate. Sanya Ali the president of the RSF Bruddersfield branch committee complains that her phone has been tapped since the announcement of national rally to be held in Bruddersfield Town Park on 25th Nov15. She has also been notified of the following condition to be imposed on the rally by the Chief Constable of bruddersfield pursuant to the public Order Act 1986 1) The maximum number of demonstrators shall be 20. 2) The maximum duration of the demonstration shall be 2 hours. 3) There should be no public speeches and; 4) That in the event of any counter demonstration, the bruddersfield Police reserves the right to cancel the demonstration immediately. Question Advise, giving reasons, whether Chalie, Sanya and RSF can use the Human Rights Act 1998 to challenge the actions above. Note: ‘Important ‘ use these cases as reference Averill v UK (2001) Backowski v Poland [2007] Bowman v UK, 1998 Benham v UK [1996] Brogan [1989] Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] Chappell v UK [1988] Christians Against Racism and Fascism v UK [1980] Cyprus v Turkey (1982) El-Masri v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2013) Greenpeace Schweiz v Switzerland and Ors (1997) Greens and M.T. v The United Kingdom 2010 Golder v UK [1980] Guzzardi v Italy (1981) H v UK [1993] HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2) 1985 Handyside v UK (1976) Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) JakUbski v Poland (2010) Klass v Germany (1978) Kokkinakis v Greece (1993) Kopp v Austria [1999] Lupsa v Romania (2008) Malone v UK [1987] Miszkurka v Poland [2006] Murray v UK (1994) Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2002] Nazarenko v Ukraine (1999) Ollinger v Austria (2006) Platform Arzte fur das Leben v Austria [1991] Rowe and Davis v UK (2000) R (Daly) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2005] Steel v UK [1999] Steel and Morris v UK [2005] Stogmuller v Austria (1980).

Con and add
Order Description
The Bruddersfield branch committee of RSF is concerned about the following issues in relation to their members: Charlie was arrested following a protest outside Bruddersfield Town Hall amd has been held in custody for three months without trial and has been denied access to legal advice. She complains about being very cold due to a lack of heating in her cell and being given a meat based diet even though she has made it clear her religion requires her to be a vegan. Charlie was also denied the right to vote in recent local elections for an RSF candidate. Sanya Ali the president of the RSF Bruddersfield branch committee complains that her phone has been tapped since the announcement of national rally to be held in Bruddersfield Town Park on 25th Nov15. She has also been notified of the following condition to be imposed on the rally by the Chief Constable of bruddersfield pursuant to the public Order Act 1986 1) The maximum number of demonstrators shall be 20. 2) The maximum duration of the demonstration shall be 2 hours. 3) There should be no public speeches and; 4) That in the event of any counter demonstration, the bruddersfield Police reserves the right to cancel the demonstration immediately. Question Advise, giving reasons, whether Chalie, Sanya and RSF can use the Human Rights Act 1998 to challenge the actions above. Note: ‘Important ‘ use these cases as reference Averill v UK (2001) Backowski v Poland [2007] Bowman v UK, 1998 Benham v UK [1996] Brogan [1989] Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] Chappell v UK [1988] Christians Against Racism and Fascism v UK [1980] Cyprus v Turkey (1982) El-Masri v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2013) Greenpeace Schweiz v Switzerland and Ors (1997) Greens and M.T. v The United Kingdom 2010 Golder v UK [1980] Guzzardi v Italy (1981) H v UK [1993] HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2) 1985 Handyside v UK (1976) Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) JakUbski v Poland (2010) Klass v Germany (1978) Kokkinakis v Greece (1993) Kopp v Austria [1999] Lupsa v Romania (2008) Malone v UK [1987] Miszkurka v Poland [2006] Murray v UK (1994) Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2002] Nazarenko v Ukraine (1999) Ollinger v Austria (2006) Platform Arzte fur das Leben v Austria [1991] Rowe and Davis v UK (2000) R (Daly) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2005] Steel v UK [1999] Steel and Morris v UK [2005] Stogmuller v Austria (1980).

Con and add
Order Description
The Bruddersfield branch committee of RSF is concerned about the following issues in relation to their members: Charlie was arrested following a protest outside Bruddersfield Town Hall amd has been held in custody for three months without trial and has been denied access to legal advice. She complains about being very cold due to a lack of heating in her cell and being given a meat based diet even though she has made it clear her religion requires her to be a vegan. Charlie was also denied the right to vote in recent local elections for an RSF candidate. Sanya Ali the president of the RSF Bruddersfield branch committee complains that her phone has been tapped since the announcement of national rally to be held in Bruddersfield Town Park on 25th Nov15. She has also been notified of the following condition to be imposed on the rally by the Chief Constable of bruddersfield pursuant to the public Order Act 1986 1) The maximum number of demonstrators shall be 20. 2) The maximum duration of the demonstration shall be 2 hours. 3) There should be no public speeches and; 4) That in the event of any counter demonstration, the bruddersfield Police reserves the right to cancel the demonstration immediately. Question Advise, giving reasons, whether Chalie, Sanya and RSF can use the Human Rights Act 1998 to challenge the actions above. Note: ‘Important ‘ use these cases as reference Averill v UK (2001) Backowski v Poland [2007] Bowman v UK, 1998 Benham v UK [1996] Brogan [1989] Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] Chappell v UK [1988] Christians Against Racism and Fascism v UK [1980] Cyprus v Turkey (1982) El-Masri v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2013) Greenpeace Schweiz v Switzerland and Ors (1997) Greens and M.T. v The United Kingdom 2010 Golder v UK [1980] Guzzardi v Italy (1981) H v UK [1993] HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2) 1985 Handyside v UK (1976) Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) JakUbski v Poland (2010) Klass v Germany (1978) Kokkinakis v Greece (1993) Kopp v Austria [1999] Lupsa v Romania (2008) Malone v UK [1987] Miszkurka v Poland [2006] Murray v UK (1994) Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2002] Nazarenko v Ukraine (1999) Ollinger v Austria (2006) Platform Arzte fur das Leben v Austria [1991] Rowe and Davis v UK (2000) R (Daly) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2001] R (Brehony) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2005] Steel v UK [1999] Steel and Morris v UK [2005] Stogmuller v Austria (1980).