Editing Brian Haw (section)

==''Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw''==
In the case of ''Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw'', the judgement of the court, delivered by [[Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers|Lord Phillips CJ]], included the following:
{{blockquote|3. The issues raised by the case stated are as follows:{{plainlist|
*i) Whether the statutory powers available to the Commissioner of Police under Section 134 of SOCA can be exercised by a subordinate on his behalf;
*ii) Whether the conditions imposed on Mr Haw were ultra vires, or incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR'), as unreasonable or insufficiently clear.<ref name=transcript>{{cite web |url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1931.html |title=Director of Public Prosecutions v Haw |website=Bailii.org |date=6 August 2007}}</ref>}}}}

This was an adjourned hearing of an appeal by way of case stated by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a decision of District Judge Purdy in the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on 22 January 2007. The judge ruled that there was no case for the Respondent, Brian Haw, to answer on a charge of knowingly failing to comply with a condition imposed under Section 134 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 ('SOCA') in respect of a demonstration in Parliament Square. The hearing before the [[High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division)|Administrative Court]] was adjourned because Mr Haw had not been served with relevant documents in time to give them proper consideration.{{citation needed|date=June 2017}}

Haw sought a large number of directions from the court on 18 November 2008. After some delay the directions of the court were eventually published in March 2009:
* ''Haw, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court & Ors'' [2009] EWHC 379 (Admin) (3 March 2009) <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/379.html |title=Haw, R (on the application of) v Southwark Crown Court & Ors [2009&#93; EWHC 379 (Admin) (03 March 2009) |website=Bailii.org |access-date=2017-06-15}}</ref>
The court was un-persuaded that a full transcript of the hearing<ref name=transcript/> was necessary, even though Haw claimed that it would show that the court sidestepped the issue as to the legality of the seizure.