An LA tried to ban the transportation of foreign livestock to its area because of the activity and size of the disruptive protests. QBD held that the bans were unlawful under the body's statutory power. The authority had given in to unlawful threats and a lawful trade in live animals was not to be interrupted for fear of public disorder.
Brown LJ: "None of them, it appears, gave the least thought to the awesome implications for the rule of law of doing what they propose." This was contrary to "the thread [which] runs consistently throughout all the case law; the recognition that public authorities must beware of surrendering to the dictates of unlawful pressure groups." Thus a policy based on considerations that contradict the rule of law is illegitimate. The decision was “was wholly disproportionate to the security risk presented at that time”- indicates use of proportionality test where no ECHR rights are concerned.