Campaigners claim victory as judges quash Braverman move against protests
Civil rights campaigners have hailed a 'huge victory for democracy' after the court of appeal upheld the quashing of a key anti-protest regulation they said was introduced unlawfully.
The government had appealed against a high court ruling that the previous Tory home secretary, Suella Braverman, did not have the power to redefine 'serious disruption' as 'more than minor' in the law concerning when police could impose limits on protests.
It was a change in law that seriously limited the kinds of actions protesters could take, and which campaigners said had given police almost unlimited discretionary power over which protests to allow and which to halt.
Akiko Hart, the director of the human rights organisation Liberty, which brought the initial challenge, 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 12 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.'
Read More Focus on prison places is a political ploy | Letter
The case centred around a statutory instrument, a type of legislation that can pass with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, introduced by Braverman to clarify the definition of 'serious disruption' under the Public Order Act 1986, after lords had voted down similar provisions just months earlier.
A cross-party parliamentary committee said it was the first time a government had ever sought to use so-called Henry VIII powers to make changes to a law that had already been rejected by parliament in primary legislation. One peer described it in parliament as a 'constitutional outrage'.
Liberty challenged the redefinition with a judicial review, arguing that Braverman had overreached by introducing the change under secondary legislation which requires less parliamentary oversight.
But even as that challenge was under way, hundreds of campaigners were arrested under the new power, including the climate activist Greta Thunberg at a protest in London. She was acquitted of all charges in a hearing in February 2024.
Finally, in May last year, the high court agreed with the campaigners' arguments, but judges suspended the reversal of the measures after the Home Office began an appeal that was continued after government changed hands in 2024.
Upholding the high court's ruling on Friday morning, Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The term 'serious' inherently connotes a high threshold … [and] cannot reasonably encompass anything that is merely 'more than minor'.'
Liberty, despite claiming victory, warned that the section 14 power which has now been softened was just one plank of extensive legislation that had drastically circumscribed people's ability to protest in the UK. It has issued a warning about new powers building on previous acts currently under consideration by lawmakers as part of a crime and policing bill.
'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,' said Katy Watts, a Liberty lawyer.
A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The court has ruled that specific regulations made by the previous government were unlawful. However, the central powers currently used by policing to manage protests and ensure that they remain peaceful are not affected by this judgment.
'The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy but the law remains clear that it does not extend to intentional intimidation or serious disruption to the life of the community.
'We are already bringing forward new measures in legislation to prevent intimidatory protests outside places of worship. We will ensure that the police and the public have clarity on existing powers to manage protests that cause serious disruption, including where that disruption is cumulative, and undertake further work where required.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
8 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
WSJ Opinion: The Deportation Wars Begin
Videos that speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations."
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Colorado Democratic officials condemn federalization of National Guard in Los Angeles
Anti-ICE demonstrators marched through the streets of Denver after a rally at the Colorado Capitol on June 10, 2025. (Chase Woodruff/Colorado Newsline) After President Donald Trump federalized National Guard troops against anti-ICE demonstrators in Los Angeles, Colorado Democratic leaders say the move is an overreach and would oppose similar actions in the state. Trump has ordered a detachment of 700 U.S. Marines and thousands of National Guard troops to deploy to L.A. over the objections of state and local leaders, the first such move by a U.S. president since 1965. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sued to block the deployments, which he said 'crossed a red line.' Trump on Monday suggested Newsom, whom he did not accuse of any crime, should be arrested. Shelby Wieman, spokesperson for Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, said Polis 'has been clear' he would not support 'federal overreach to activate the National Guard outside of regular order,' as the Colorado National Guard plays an important role in helping the state and others with natural disasters and emergencies as needed. 'There is absolutely no need to take away National Guard units from the states, and any engagement with National Guard on this topic must include Governors, who serve as commanders in chief in most instances for their Guard,' Wieman said in a statement. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX A spokesperson for the Colorado National Guard said Tuesday it 'has not received an official request for support' from the federal government. The memorandum Trump issued authorizing the military escalation is not specific to Los Angeles or California, leaving open the potential for similar responses in other states. Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, told NPR that the conditions that would ordinarily warrant military action are not present in this situation. Colorado protests have grown since the escalations in L.A., with more than 1,000 people gathering outside the Colorado Capitol Tuesday night. Attendees began marching down two of the main roads around the Capitol and were met by a line of law enforcement officers after blocking traffic. Police arrested 17 people in relation to the demonstration. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston told Newsline that in his lifetime, Marines or National Guard troops have never been deployed into an American city without an 'emphatic plea for help' from the city. 'America is built on the belief that we can ensure public safety and free speech. We don't have to choose just one,' Johnston said in a statement. 'This is not support. This is turning American soldiers on American citizens in service of Trump's own political theatre. That decision disrespects the Marines and National Guard, disrespects American citizens, and disrespects the rule of law.' In a post on X, U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, a Centennial Democrat and Army veteran, said federalizing the National Guard should always be a 'last resort' when local law enforcement cannot alone handle a situation. He urged Trump to reverse course given that both the mayor of L.A. and Newsom made clear they did not need military support. 'The reason for this is simple: introducing military personnel into domestic law enforcement situations is an escalation and can put both the military personnel and civilians on the ground at additional risk,' Crow said in the post. Crow detailed in a separate thread on X that Trump's deployment of the military in American communities is concerning because military personnel receive 'very little training in law enforcement and domestic disturbance' as they are trained for 'high-intensity combat operations.' He said Trump is trying to 'intimidate Americans and suppress opposing views.' Trump's executive order authorizing the use of 'ANY personnel, in ANY location, for ANY length of time' is 'a dangerous slippery slope' that should concern Americans everywhere, Crow said. 'Sending military personnel with combat equipment and heavy weapons into tense domestic situations rarely deescalates. We have often seen deadly consequences and the erosion of public trust,' Crow said. 'The servicemembers being mobilized signed up to protect Americans and their rights, not to be deployed against their fellow citizens.' U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Windsor Republican and staunch Trump ally, has shown support for the military escalation in California online and criticized Democrats for 'trash talking' military and law enforcement personnel. 'If the feckless progressives in California won't restore order, our U.S. Marines are more than up to the task,' she posted on X. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Winners and losers: Who got what in the spending review?
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced the government's Spending Review, which outlines the day-to-day budgets for departments over the next three years. The review will see NHS funding increase by 3% a year as well as more money for defence and housing. But other departments will see their budget cuts - including 1.7% at the Home Office, 2.7% at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and 6.9% at the Foreign Office. Here BBC correspondents analyse how some key services have fared and what the decisions may mean for you. The education sector will see one of the largest funding boosts. There is money for England's schools - especially crumbling ones - as well as for training and upskilling. Those key takeaways are nestled among rehashed pledges like expanding free school meals and introducing free breakfast clubs. The core schools budget will rise by £2bn in real terms by 2029, the Department for Education says, but much of it will go on those previous commitments. Falling pupil numbers means the department can make some savings, but that money still has to pay for an awful lot. The government is staring down the barrel of ever-growing demand for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support. The Spending Review does not seem to address deficits racked up by councils supporting those children, but it does appear to have set aside around £700m to reform the system. Leaky schools on the government's rebuilding programme - many still waiting for builders - will also be wondering if a £2.4bn annual cash injection will suffice. The 3% annual real-terms increase in NHS spending announced by the chancellor will look generous to departments with low or no increases. That number covers day-to-day spending by the NHS, for example staff pay and the costs of medicines and patients care. The overall annual increase for the Department of Health is 2.8% - one of the highest departmental increases in the Spending Review - and includes other areas like medicines regulation and pandemic preparedness, as well as the NHS. It is worth pointing out that the health service needs real-term spending growth every year to cope with an increasing and ageing population alongside rising bills for medicines and new treatments. The long-term trend for annual UK health spending in recent decades has been around 3.5%. Aside from day-to-day funding there is also capital spending, which covers investment in buildings and equipment. In real-terms there will be no increase each year. The big question is whether that will be enough to enable staff to deliver more operations and procedures. One of Labour's pledges is to ensure more than 90% of patients in England start treatment within 18 weeks of referral. Currently it is less than 60%. Hitting that target is a big ask with all the other claims on spending. "We are happy bunnies" is how someone from the Department for Transport (DfT) reacted to the Spending Review. That is despite the department seeing its annual day-to-day budget decrease by 5% - the largest cut in the review. That hit is mostly down to a big drop in the subsidies the government has been paying to train companies since the Covid-19 pandemic. Capital expenditure - meaning money for long-term infrastructure investment – on transport is actually going up by 3.9%, among the highest. Long-term investment in transport infrastructure is clearly central to Labour's plan for "national renewal", so a good chunk of the chancellor's speech was devoted to various upgrades. Some we already knew about, some we didn't. They include a new Liverpool to Manchester rail line, a freeze on the £3 cap on bus fares in England until March 2027 and more than £15.6bn on new trams, trains and buses outside of London. The Conservatives say a lot of this is just rehashing of old announcements with little detail attached. The government says it will lay some meat on the bones of these plans next week in its so-called "infrastructure week". Apart from bus fares, which is a continuation of an existing policy, Reeves' plans are in keeping with the general theme of this Spending Review: ambitious but ultimately not materialising for quite some time - until the 2030s at the earliest. Seven ways the Spending Review affects you What has the chancellor has announced? The key points Watch: Where the money is being spent You could almost hear the sigh of relief from social landlords when £39bn was announced for social and affordable housing. Many had warned that without significant funding and certainty, the government would never reach its target of building 1.5 million homes over this parliament. But they've called Wednesday's announcement a "game changer". Guaranteeing how much social landlords will receive in rents over the next 10 years means that housing associations can plan how much they have to invest in building. Housing charity Shelter called the investment a "watershed moment". The charity's head of policy, Charlie Trew, said the amount was 70% more than the previous government invested but it was still not enough to end homelessness for good. The charity called for a "clear target" for exactly how many social rent homes are planned. A 2.3% real terms yearly funding increase for policing in England and Wales is slightly better than senior officers had feared, but forces are already warning of "some ruthless prioritisation", arguing that most of the money will be "swallowed up" by police pay rises. The chancellor stressed that an increase of "more than £2bn" will mean government pledges on cutting crime and increasing police numbers can be kept. On immigration, there is more money for the Border Security Command, rising to £280m extra a year, with promises of new kit including an army of drones to improve surveillance. Reeves also promised that the use of hotels for asylum seekers would end by 2029. But with overall Home Office spending being cut by 1.7% a year, there are knotted eyebrows at how this is all going to add up and be achieved while managing a sizeable squeeze to the department's budget. Just recently we were told that offenders recalled to prison would be let out earlier due to overcrowding. We know the government is planning on building three more prisons to deal with the capacity crisis. The chancellor said £7bn would be spent on that building project - that's more than we were told earlier this month, when the figure stood at £4.7bn. The increase in funding - an extra 1.8% each year is the second highest rise in the review - indicates the severity and urgency of the problem. But building more prisons will take years. Also announced was £700m to reform the probation service - that cash will fund further recruitment on top of the 1,300 officers the government had already said it will employ this year. Several probation officers welcomed the investment but raised concerns about their "increasing workload" and when the new hires will be functional. The chancellor has made full use of the extra £113bn in capital spending available as a result of changing her own borrowing rules. There are some big ticket items on the list, most of which were announced before Wednesday, but these large projects will take many years before people will notice the difference. An extra £14.2bn for the new Sizewell C nuclear plant will be spent over at least a decade. The same is true of an extra £39bn for affordable and social housing. New announcements included £10bn for making homes more energy efficient and a new carbon capture project in Scotland. Connecting people and places is also growth-enhancing, but again the £16bn on transport links outside of London will not see quick returns. Business groups are largely supportive of these ambitious plans and the chancellor will hope it persuades firms to spend some of their own money to boost business investment, which has been chronically low. They may want to see the detail of the upcoming infrastructure and industrial strategies. There is jam in here but it will take time to spread and the results will take longer than tomorrow. The chancellor announced that funding for science - or research and development (R&D) - would increase to just over £22.6 billion per year by 2029/30. That funding pays for scientific research across government departments such as health, defence and energy. That overall figure also includes the budget for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) itself, which has been given £16bn per year and will use it to fund research for everything from drug development to materials science to AI – £2bn has been earmarked for the latter from 2026/27 to 2029/30. While the chancellor called this a "record", it is broadly in line with projected inflation. But the UK's Campaign for Science and Engineering said it was welcome confirmation that the R&D budget was being "protected in tough fiscal circumstances". Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society, said the UK continued to lag behind competitors in the G7 on research and innovation investment. "We should be looking to lead," he added in a statement. "We must also go further to attract and retain global talent. "The UK's sky-high upfront visa costs are an unnecessary deterrent at a time when our competitors are rolling out the welcome mat for the brightest minds."
