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.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Emma Kelly reserved judgement and said her ruling would be issued in the coming days.

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

The court heard that while Bridge, from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire,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.

Representing Bridge, Liam Wells said the council had failed to prove his client had acted unlawfully and it 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 views of that kind were "at the top of the scale" of speech deserving protection.

In a statement read to the court, Bridge said the Union flag represented "home, identity, belonging, national identity, British culture and patriotism" and was "not merely a piece of material or a street decoration".

The court heard the flags were displayed in public because "the message is intended for ordinary people in shared spaces rather than people who already follow Raise the Colours online".

Wells argued his client's actions were "genuine political activities" and not attempts to cause trouble, adding any disruption caused by the campaign was outweighed by Bridge's rights to freedom of expression and protest.

He told the court: "An expression of article 11 will inevitably involve some disruption. The authorities do have to tolerate that to some extent.

"For me, the union flag means home, identity, British culture and patriotism... not merely a piece of material or street decoration."

He added the campaign had become part of a wider debate about "identity, immigration and government policy".

The court heard Bridge believed displaying flags on private property was not sufficient because they would reach only a limited audience.

He said the displays were intended for "ordinary people in shared spaces" and could be seen by people travelling to work, taking children to school or visiting shops.

Wells said his client "simply wants to continue expressing his particular beliefs" and had "never encouraged anyone to break the law".

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 would inevitably cause some disruption and authorities should show tolerance towards them.

Wells also argued Bridge should not be held responsible for the actions of others and said comments about "not giving up" referred to continuing to express his views, not breaking the law.

During submissions, Kelly told Wells she hoped he had "better arguments" than those presented at an earlier hearing.

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."

Responding on behalf of the council, Jonathan Manning said the issue for the court was whether Birmingham City Council was likely to succeed at a final hearing.

He said there were "other ways" for Bridge to make his protest without attaching items to highway infrastructure and argued the evidence showed "significantly more" activity than Bridge had admitted to.

Manning rejected claims the injunction was overly broad, saying it would not apply to flags in gardens or windows, and would apply equally to all unauthorised flags attached to highway infrastructure regardless of their message.

He also challenged attempts to distance Bridge from incidents involving supporters, telling the court: "We do not accept that he can waive all responsibility for all the matters he absolved himself of."

Manning said the injunction was intended to prevent future activity and act as a deterrent.

After hearing submissions from both sides, Kelly reserved judgment.

The court heard a written ruling is expected later this week, with a further hearing on consequential matters due to take place next week or the week after.

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