The BBC reports that Brian Haw's legal loophole challenge to the Serious Organised Crime and Security Act 2005, is being considered by a panel of three High Court Judges, who will rule on it by the end of the week.
Unfortunately, even if the High Court rules in favour of Brian Haw, the legal precedent will not apply to the vast majority of other people who might wish to demonstrate in the Designated Area in the future.
It is not clear from the Home Office's Freedom of Information Act disclosure,
"9) Will a short walk in and around the Parliament Square "Designated Area" entail getting prior permission from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police if you happen to be wearing a "political slogan" T-shirt or badge ?9. The definition of a demonstration is ultimately a matter for the courts."
that there may have to be another test case to determime exactly what constitutes "a demonstration" under this very poorly worded new legislation, as this panel of High Court Judges will probably only be considering the narrow point of law applicable to Brian Haw.
"Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 July, 2005, 16:55 GMT 17:55 UKParliament protester wins review
A protester who has held an anti-war vigil opposite Parliament for four years has won the right to challenge new laws which threaten to evict him.
From 1 August the police will have the power to move Brian Haw, 56, as all protests within a half-mile zone in Westminster must have prior permission.
Three High Court judges began hearing the case immediately and will give their judgment by the end of the week.
Mr Haw, from Worcs, claims he is exempt as his protest pre-dates the new laws.
The measures, part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, effectively ban all spontaneous protests near Parliament.
Mr Haw has been protesting in Parliament Square, surrounded by anti-war placards, since June 2001.
But his position is under threat as anyone who wants to demonstrate within the "exclusion zone", will need police permission or face removal or arrest.
Ahead of Tuesday's hearing Mr Haw said: "The government clearly do not want me as a constant reminder of the immense suffering they are causing the people of Iraq."
Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice McCombe, ruled his case should go to a full hearing and, because of its urgency, should proceed immediately.
'Absurd' arguments
Richard Drabble QC, appearing for Mr Haw, said he was seeking a declaration that Mr Haw did not need to apply for authorisation to continue the demonstration he started four years ago.
Mr Drabble said: "At the heart of the case is the proposition that.... it is quite clear that the section [of the law] does not apply to demonstrations which had already started before commencement (of the new Act)."
Nathalie Lieven, appearing for the home secretary, said the new law applied to continuing as well as new demonstrations and described the arguments being put forward by Mr Haw's legal team as "absurd".
Ms Lieven said Mr Haw's display of anti-war banners, placards and flags gave rise to a potential security risk.
"It would be easy to leave items that would cause a serious risk to members of the public and MPs," argued Ms Lieven.
Adam Clemens, appearing for the Commissioner of Police, said Mr Haw was already regularly checked for security purposes, but other people "in the current climate" might seek to take advantage of the relationship they had built up with him."
Does Ms Lieven acutally suggest particular items she thinks could be left behind the banners, or is this left as some kind of vague idea? I mean, that's the point of her case, isn't it? Otherwise it's like prosecuting someone for "a crime", but being unable to disclose what it is.
Given the number of CCTV surveillance cameras and even broadcast TV cameras trained on Parliament Square, from all angles, how is it possiible for anybody or anything to hide behind the banners and placards ?
Someone would either have to be a child, or to be literally crawling on the grass to be obscured by the banners from direct observation across the road at the Palace of Westminster..
Even the low quality pictures published by the BBC Jam Cam feed from the traffic camera at the junction of Whitehall and Parliament Square clearly shows anything or anybody trying to "hide" behind the line of banners.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/travel/jamcams/camloco/546501.shtml
The security surveillance cameras will see even more detail, day or night, rain or shine. especially the ones facing the Palace of Westminster itself, i.e. behind the line of banners.