Liberty defeats Government appeal as Court rules anti-protest laws are unlawful

• 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.

Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said:

“Today’s judgment is clear, just as it was last year, that these laws should never have been made. They were a flagrant abuse of power from a Government determined to shut down protesters they did not personally agree with.

“Five different judges over two separate hearings have now ruled that ‘serious’ simply cannot mean ‘more than minor’. It’s therefore even more surprising that the current Government chose to continue the appeal into this case and argue that wasn’t the case. As a result, even more people have been needlessly funnelled into the criminal system over the past twelve months through a law that should never have existed in the first place.

“This ruling is a huge victory for democracy, and sets an important precedent that Government ministers must respect the law, and cannot simply step outside it to do whatever they want. The next step for the Government is simple – they must accept this ruling and agree to scrap this unlawful legislation once and for all.”

Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty, said:

“We launched this legal action two years ago to ensure that governments are not able to sneak in legislation via the back door that weakens the rights of all of us. This judgment is a victory for Parliament and the rule of law.

“The regulations we’ve defeated today are just one of many anti-protest laws introduced in recent years which have criminalised protesters and clamped down on the ways we can make our voices heard. It’s especially worrying that even more measures are going through Parliament, including bans on face coverings at protests that would make it unsafe for disabled activists and political dissidents to protest.

“Protest is a fundamental right and the cornerstone of our democracy. It must not be undermined by Governments who want to shut down the ways we hold them to account. We hope today’s ruling makes the Government take stock and take a different direction that respects protest rights, instead of stripping them away further.”

Shameem Ahmad, CEO of Public Law Project, who intervened in the case, said:

“Public Law Project supported Liberty in the High Court and the Court of Appeal because this is a critical juncture for the UK’s democracy.

“The former Home Secretary used statutory instruments to significantly restrict protest rights without scrutiny, despite these amendments being previously voted down by Parliament. The High Court agreed with us that this was an excessive and unlawful use of executive power.

“When the current Government decided to appeal that decision, they missed a valuable opportunity to defend civil liberties, restore proper balance between the executive power and Parliament and commit to making laws the right way.

“The Court of Appeal has agreed with Liberty and PLP. PLP believes the public deserves better than backdoor law-making that allows their fundamental rights to be diminished by ministerial decree. The public deserves assurance that legislation impacting their daily lives has undergone Parliamentary debate and thorough scrutiny.

“We trust that this decisive victory for the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty will serve as a watershed moment for the Government. These restrictive protest laws should now be permanently abandoned and Henry VIII powers relegated to the annals of history where they belong.”

Liberty was represented by Jude Bunting KC of Doughty Street Chambers, Hollie Higgins of Blackstone Chambers and Rosalind Comyn of Matrix Chambers.