Campaigners have every right to celebrate.
In a landmark ruling this week, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision striking down key anti-protest legislation pushed through by the previous Conservative government. It’s a win for the rule of law, a win for accountability, and above all, a win for democracy says Pat Harrington.
What Was This Really About?
This wasn’t a dry legal technicality. This was about how far governments can go to silence dissent.
In 2023, then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman used Henry VIII powers — legal shortcuts that allow ministers to change the law without a full parliamentary vote — to redefine the meaning of “serious disruption” in the Public Order Act. Instead of “significant and prolonged” disruption, the new threshold would have been anything “more than minor.”
This change gave police a dangerously vague mandate to shut down protests they didn’t like. And let’s be honest — the protests they didn’t like were the ones that held power to account: environmental actions, trade union pickets, and demonstrations for Palestine.
The Courts Stepped In
Civil liberties group Liberty challenged the changes — and won. Twice.
The Court of Appeal, like the High Court before it, found the new law unlawful. Lord Justice Underhill and his colleagues didn’t mince words:
“The term ‘serious’ inherently connotes a high threshold … and cannot reasonably encompass anything that is merely ‘more than minor’.”
Five judges. Two courts. One clear message: You can’t twist the meaning of language to criminalise peaceful protest.
Why Did Labour Continue the Appeal?
Here’s where things get murky.
Despite inheriting this case from the Tories, the Labour government chose to continue the appeal. Why?
No one forced them to. And yet they sided with expanding state powers over protecting civil liberties.
Liberty’s director, Akiko Hart, nailed it:
“It’s even more surprising that the current government chose to continue the appeal… even more people have been needlessly funnelled into the criminal system through a law that should never have existed.”
If Labour claims to stand for civil rights, it needs to explain why it stood on the wrong side of this fight.
Real Lives, Real Consequences
This isn’t academic. Dozens of people have been arrested and charged under the now-unlawful regulation. These are people who dared to speak out — and ended up in police vans or courtrooms.
Liberty is right to demand a full review of every arrest under the invalidated law.
📣 No one should have a criminal record because a government tried to redefine the word “serious” to mean “slightly annoying.”
A Warning on What’s Next
While this ruling is cause for celebration, the fight is far from over.
The Crime and Policing Bill currently working its way through Parliament includes more anti-protest measures — including a ban on face coverings. That may sound reasonable until you think about who it impacts:
- Disabled and immunocompromised people
- Protesters concerned for their safety
- Whistleblowers and political dissidents
Under this new clause, you could face a £1,000 fine and a month in prison just for covering your face. That’s not about safety — that’s about control.
Greenpeace UK called on Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to tear up these proposals and ditch Braverman’s authoritarian legacy. They’re absolutely right.
Time to Bury Henry VIII Powers
This case is also a stark reminder of how dangerous Henry VIII powers have become.
What began as a niche legal mechanism for tweaking minor technical issues has ballooned into a tool for rewriting major laws without democratic scrutiny. That’s not how a modern democracy should function.
As Shameem Ahmad from the Public Law Project put it:
“These restrictive protest laws should now be permanently abandoned and Henry VIII powers relegated to the annals of history where they belong.”
Amen to that.
Final Thoughts: The Court Did Its Job. Will Parliament?
The Court of Appeal made the right call. It stood up for the law, for language, and for liberty. Now Parliament must do the same.
Here’s what should happen next:
✅ Review all convictions and arrests made under the unlawful law
✅ Scrap the face-covering clause in the Crime and Policing Bill
✅ End the use of backdoor secondary legislation on human rights issues
✅ Protect the right to protest — don’t criminalise it
Protest isn’t a nuisance to be managed. It’s a sign of a healthy democracy.
The courts have spoken. Let’s hope our elected leaders finally start listening.
🖊️ Pat Harrington is a writer and commentator. He advocates for civil liberties, workers’ rights, and democratic accountability. He is the Director of the Third Way.
Discussion
No comments yet.