Flag injunction would 'silence political views'

A lawyer representing the co-founder of the anti-migrant group Raise the Colours has told a court that putting up flags is an expression of his political views that should be protected by the European Convention on Human Rights

The submission was made at the High Court on Monday, as Birmingham City Council sought an injunction preventing Ryan Bridge and his group from attaching flags and other items to public property.

The authority has argued their actions caused danger, alarm and distress, and an injunction is needed to prevent further incidents.

The court heard that while Bridge was the group's founder and "front man", he had never incited people to break the law.

At a previous hearing, the court heard allegations of intimidation, abuse and threatening behaviour linked to the campaign.

More than 20 Raise the Colours supporters attended the High Court in Birmingham for the start of the hearing on Monday.

Representing Bridge, Liam Wells said the council had failed to prove his client had acted unlawfully and had not met the legal threshold required to secure an interim injunction.

He told the court the flag campaign was an expression of political views protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which cover freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

Wells argued the proposed order would be disproportionate, risked "silencing people in their political views and expression of political opinions" and would have a "chilling effect" on political expression.

Restricting Bridge to displaying flags only on private property would "destroy the essence of freedom of expression", he said.

Referring to rights protected under the Human Rights Act, Wells said it was "incumbent on the claimant to show they're more likely than not to be successful at trial" and argued the council had failed to clear that hurdle.

He questioned the urgency of the application, noting the flagging activity had been taking place for some time.

Wells also argued Bridge had a "reasonable excuse" defence under the Highways Act 1980 and said: "What my client has admitted to isn't a criminal offence."

He told the court the flags were an expression of patriotism and political beliefs, adding that views of that kind were "at the top of the scale" of speech deserving protection.

While acknowledging there had been "some alleged disruption to public life and traffic", Wells argued any impact caused by the flags was limited and did not justify an injunction.

He said demonstrations in public places would inevitably cause some disruption and authorities should show tolerance towards them.

Addressing a series of incidents cited by the council, Wells argued Bridge had not been responsible for the actions of others and said there was no evidence he had carried out any specific flagging activity since the previous hearing.

Referring to videos in which Bridge said he was "not giving up", Wells said the comments related to continuing to express his views and should not be interpreted as an intention to break the law or defy a court order.

During submissions, Judge Emma Kelly told Wells: "Hope you have better arguments than what happened before 30 September."

Later, she added: "Your client seems to attempt to distance himself from all of these events yet by the same token he seems to accept that he's the front man for Raise the Colours, he puts out social media posts. It's a curious position to adopt in some respect."

Wells replied: "He is the front man but he's never incited people to break the law. He's encouraged people to express their views and opinions."

The hearing continues.

Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.