Birmingham Residents Called to Join High Court Flag Injunction Opposition

As Birmingham City Council prepares to return to the High Court this Wednesday, 30 September, its attempt to secure a sweeping, borough-wide injunction against flag displays, backed by statutory powers of arrest, represents a critical test of free expression and civil liberties in our city.

Framed by the local authority as a routine highway maintenance measure, this far-reaching contra mundum order threatens to elevate minor civil infractions, such as displaying a flag without permission, into immediately arrestable offences, setting a dangerous precedent for local authority overreach.

If you are a Birmingham resident who believes this proposed injunction infringes upon your rights to free expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, your voice deserves to be formally recognised in these legal proceedings. VP News is providing local residents with the opportunity to declare a formal public interest by joining the "Birmingham Five" in making court submissions ahead of Wednesday’s pivotal hearing.

Please note: This action is strictly open to individuals residing within the Birmingham local authority area whose local rights and environment are directly affected.

By cutting and pasting our standardised pro-forma template, inserting your address and details and sending it directly to the designated court email address provided below, quoting the subject heading below, you can ensure the presiding judge receives a clear, lawful record of resident concern before a decision of this magnitude is reached.

Email to: [email protected]

Subject:

URGENT SUBMISSION / PUBLIC INTEREST DECLARATION: Case No. KB-2026-BHM-000315 – Birmingham City Council v Ryan Bridge and Others (Application in respect of Persons Unknown / Flag Injunction)

Message:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

KING'S BENCH DIVISION

BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN:

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

Claimant

– and –

(1) RYAN BRIDGE

(2) JULIAN KEANE

(3) ELLIOT STANLEY

(4) ROSS CHILDS

(5) BILLY ALLISON

(6) BEN CULLEN

(7) MARK KEATING

(8) PERSONS UNKNOWN

Defendants

FORMAL DECLARATION AND REPRESENTATIONS OF INTERESTED RESIDENT

(OBJECTION TO APPLICATION AGAINST "PERSONS UNKNOWN")

I, [INSERT FULL NAME], of [INSERT FULL ADDRESS AND POSTCODE], wish to make personal representations to Her Honour Judge Kelly and the Court in respect of the Claimant's application for an interim injunction scheduled for hearing on 30 September 2026.

I appreciate that the formal deadline for filings may have passed; however, I feel that the public interest in this matter is so high that I wish the Court to take into account my feelings and representations on this matter. I explicitly state that I do not wish to remain as one of the anonymous "Persons Unknown" or alleged perpetrators captured by the Claimant's Eighth Defendant category.

I make this declaration on the following legal grounds:

1. Personal Standing and Assertion of Article 10 Rights

I am a resident of Birmingham who may wish to display or attach a flag—including but not limited to the St George's Cross, the Union flag or any other civic or personal emblem—to highway infrastructure such as lampposts within the city. Under UK law, national flags enjoy specific statutory recognition, including deemed consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, and cannot legally be deemed offensive per se. The right to display identity emblems is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

2. Objection to Overbroad Criminalisation

I object to the Claimant's proposed High Court injunction on the grounds that it unjustifiably criminalises peaceful civic expression under threat of committal to prison for up to two years. The proposed draft order creates a strict liability dragnet, making ordinary law-abiding residents making minor administrative attachments subject to the exact same penal sanctions as individuals accused of persistent public nuisance or harassment.

3. Failure of the "Persons Unknown" Threshold under Wolverhampton

Under Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, an equitable injunction against unidentified "newcomers" is an extraordinary remedy of last resort requiring razor-sharp specificity and strict necessity. By voluntarily stepping forward and declaring my identity to the Court, I demonstrate that the Eighth Defendant class does not consist of elusive wrongdoers, but an unbounded population of ordinary residents whose fundamental rights are directly impinged.

4. Refutation of Inherent Statutory Nuisance via Comparative Practice

The Claimant's assertion that any unauthorised flag attachment constitutes an urgent public emergency requiring High Court intervention is refuted by peer local authorities across England. Salford City Council, Essex County Council, Oldham Council, Portsmouth City Council and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council have all publicly confirmed that peaceful flag attachments on street furniture are not a routine removal priority unless an explicit physical safety hazard or structural damage exists. Section 132 of the Highways Act 1980 is a discretionary administrative power, not a strict liability imperative. The Claimant cannot convert a local discretionary policy preference into a draconian High Court injunction against the general public.

5. Flaw of the Disjunctive "OR" Drafting

The Claimant's draft order seeks to prohibit individuals from erecting flags or engaging in harassment, intimidation or physical obstruction. This disjunctive formulation means that the sole physical act of attaching a flag to a lamppost—without any accompanying aggression, traffic hazard or threat to safety—becomes a High Court contempt of court punishable by imprisonment. Any prospective order must, at minimum, be restricted to conjunctive ("AND") requirements targeting proven unlawful conduct, harassment or physical danger.

6. Availability of Orthodox Statutory and Criminal Remedies

Where the Claimant alleges that specific individuals have engaged in harassment or obstruction of council staff, Parliament has provided explicit statutory mechanisms under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Restraining Orders) and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Criminal Behaviour Orders). The Claimant should not use civil equitable remedies against "Persons Unknown" to bypass standard criminal justice thresholds or create a bespoke municipal code applicable to the wider public.

Relief Sought

I respectfully request that Her Honour Judge Kelly:

 * Discharge or sever the "Persons Unknown" (Eighth Defendant) class entirely from these proceedings; or

 * Refuse to grant any city-wide injunction that subjects ordinary, peaceful flag-displaying residents of Birmingham to the threat of High Court committal proceedings.

DATED this ________ day of September 2026.

Signed: ____________________________________

Full Name: [INSERT FULL NAME]

Address: [INSERT FULL ADDRESS]

Postcode: [INSERT POSTCODE]