I think this press statement from Liberty is worth sharing, as they posted it yesterday, because it is potentially very good news:
Liberty defeats Government appeal as Court rules anti-protest laws are unlawful
Posted on 02 May 2025
- Court of Appeal dismisses Government appeal, ruling that anti-protest regulations were made unlawfully
- Liberty challenged law change which lowered threshold on when protests can have conditions placed on them to anything that caused ‘more than minor' disruption
- Liberty calls on Government to scrap legislation and review every arrest made under the law
The Court of Appeal has today ruled that legislation granting the police ‘almost unlimited powers' to restrict protests was created unlawfully. Judges dismissed an appeal from the Government, finding in favour of human rights organisation, Liberty.
Liberty welcomed the landmark ruling, saying that the case sets an important precedent that ‘Government ministers must respect the law, and cannot simply step outside it to do whatever they want.'
Liberty has called on the Government to accept the judgment, and to review every arrest that has been made under the law.
In its judgment published today (2 May 2025), the Court of Appeal agreed with an earlier ruling of the High Court from May 2024 that then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman did not have the power to create a new law that lowered the threshold of when the police can impose conditions on protests from anything that caused ‘serious disruption' to anything that was deemed as causing ‘more than minor' disruption.
Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lord Justice Edis upheld the High Court's ruling, saying “the term “serious” inherently connotes a high threshold … (and) cannot reasonably encompass anything that is merely ‘more than minor'”.
The powers, passed in June 2023, had initially been democratically voted down just a few months earlier. Braverman instead used secondary legislation, which requires far less parliamentary scrutiny, to bring the laws into effect. A cross-party parliamentary committee said at the time this was the first time a government had ever sought to make changes to the law through so-called ‘Henry VIII powers' which had already been rejected by Parliament when introduced in primary legislation.
Liberty challenged the regulations, which have now twice been found unlawful, saying that Braverman had ‘sneaked legislation in via the back door'. Liberty said that by changing the definition of ‘serious disruption' in such a broad way, police had been given ‘almost unlimited powers to impose conditions on protests'.
The Government's appeal into this case was initially launched by the-then Home Secretary James Cleverly, but was continued by current Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.
The Court will decide in the coming weeks if the legislation is to be quashed. Liberty has called for the regulations to be quashed immediately as per the initial ruling from the High Court, whose decision to scrap them was put on hold until the conclusion of the appeal.
Hundreds of protesters have been arrested under these measures since they were created, including the climate activist Greta Thunberg who was acquitted of all charges in a hearing in February 2024.
Liberty has called for all arrests and prosecutions under the legislation to now be urgently reviewed, alongside a comprehensive review into all protest laws that have been passed in recent years.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Excellent news!
It’s sad that it has taken a referral to the Court of Appeal to tell a *Labour* Government that the legislation is unlawful. What a waste of resources! Any true Labour administration would have set about repealing the law last year.
Its not ‘pasted’ properly but I was able to go to the Liberty site & read it
Corrected now
Clearly, judges who cause more than minor inconvenience to the government need to be sacked!
(P.S. I couldn’t read this piece because it didn’t format properly on my tablet.)
Apologies
There was a lot of code embedded in the Liberty file and I have no stripped it all out
“The Government’s appeal into this case was initially launched by the-then Home Secretary James Cleverly, but was continued by current Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.”
By their actions ye shall know them. Clverly – a tory, Cooper – a tory.
The current political system – one party, two wings, no choice with only judges sitting between UK serfs and a one-party authoritarian state.
I am confident that none of the media talking heads will interview any LINO minister on this subject.
Abject curs, all of them.
Secondary legislation – why is that still in existence? Why has it not been cast out of a parliamentary system?
You are either a democracy or you are not.
It all just seems to be set up too perfectly for fascism or a return to monarchy to me.
I’m sick of this lack of seriousness when discussing the subject of ‘democracy’ in this country.
There are now a lot of outstanding arrests/prosecution to be appealed.
Also outstanding decisions on what to DO to change/strike out the unlawful legislation.
So, will the new Tory Home secretary Yvette Cooper, throw in the towel or continue to fight her Blue Labour government’s case in the courts? We will soon find out.
What on earth can be the rationale for the BBC not to report this story. Fair enough not as the top story, after all Harry broke wind in public which is obviously more important, but as far as I can see no article covering it appears anywhere on the BBC news site. I literally cannot imagine whose interest they think they are serving by omitting this.
Staggering, isn’t it?
Peter, they reported it on R4 news on Thursday, I believe.
The fact that labour have not repealed this appalling legislation and actually appealed the initial high court decision is what is staggering, to use Richard’s words.
Has the genius McSweeney worked out this kind of thing is why labour is losing so much support?
Glad it might have been reported on BBC Radio 4 the other day but not a thing reported when I do an online search. Really remiss.
Little by little, step by step we are finding out how easy it is for those determined to limit freedom to do so by dragging out laws that haven’t been used in years or applying them slightly differently and except in exceptional circumstances led by exceptional people and organizations we seem unable to do anything about it. Its very frightening and the whole irony is that its supposedly being done to “keep us safe”!