Criminalising protest in the UK

Liberty in the UK understandably delighted by the latest ruling:

We have just found out that we have won our case against Government anti-protest laws that completely ignored the will of Parliament.

Last summer Suella Braverman changed the definition of “serious disruption” to mean “more than minor” – giving police huge powers to shut down protests.

We said this move was undemocratic, unconstitutional and unacceptable.

And today, the Court has said it was UNLAWFUL.

The Government tried to change the definition of “serious” to “more than minor” when the Public Order Act was going through Parliament.

But this was rejected.

So instead, they used ‘secondary legislation’ which doesn’t go through all the regular stages of law making – and gets far less scrutiny.

Liberty lawyer Katy Watts argued the Government had no power to do this.

The term ‘serious disruption’ comes from another Public Order Act from 1986. The Home Secretary has the power to *clarify* what is meant by ‘serious’ – not completely change its meaning.

The Court agreed.

We’re now calling on the police to immediately stop using these powers.

Victory for democracy

This ruling is a huge victory for democracy and shows that holding the Government to account when they put themselves above the law – whether this Government or future governments – CAN and MUST be done.  

As the Guardian notes:

The former home secretary Suella Braverman acted unlawfully in making it easier for the police to criminalise peaceful protests, the high court has ruled.

She was found to have both acted outside her powers and to have failed to consult properly over regulations that would be likely to increase prosecutions of protesters by a third.

 

Hundreds of protesters have been arrested since the government redefined the sort of protest that could be restricted by the police, allowing it where there is merely a “more than minor” hindrance to people’s daily lives.

Those prosecuted included the climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was acquitted of all charges in a hearing in February 2024.

In their judgment, Lord Justice Green and Mr Justice Kerr said the government had overreached in defining “serious disruption” as merely “more than minor” and that it had been wrong to consult only with law enforcement agencies about the repercussions of the change.

Predictably:

The Home Office said it would appeal against the ruling. The high court has suspended the reversal of the measures until after the outcome of the appeal.