UK human rights organization Liberty recently argued in court that the UK unlawfully bolstered police powers to impose conditions on peaceful protests. The disputed law is the Public Order Act, which was pushed through Parliament by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, despite being rejected by Parliament a few months prior in January 2023.
The crux of the court case revolves around the Public Order Act, which was granted royal assent in May 2023. The legislation is described as dealing with new public order offenses, stop and search powers, the application of police functions pertaining to public order, proceedings initiated by the Secretary of State in relation to protest-related activities, serious disturbance prevention orders, and other connected reasons.
The legality of ‘serious disruption prevention orders’ and police powers are a major point of contention in the court case. The offending act permits the police to impose conditions on a protest if it could result in ‘serious disruption to the life of the community,’ a phrase explained in Part 3 S. 34(1) of the Act. This could mean hindering individuals or an organization, preventing the production or acquisition of a ‘time-sensitive product,’ or denying access to essential goods or services. Such conditions could now apply to any protest that affects a person or organization’s activity ‘more than a minor degree.’
Liberty is contesting the range of this provision due to Braverman’s use of a statutory instrument to retroactively modify the act and lower what constitutes a ‘serious disruption.’ As Liberty asserts, ‘Braverman and the Government were not delegated the powers to execute such an action by Parliament, making it an overreach and a breach of the constitutional principle of the separation of Parliament.’ The cross-party House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee found in a recent report that this is the first instance of a government attempting to alter the law in ways rejected by Parliament.
Defending Liberty’s stance, the Liberty lawyer leading the case, Kay Watts, expressed, ‘Our democracy was designed to ensure that a government can’t just do whatever it wants – but the Government’s actions are making a mockery of this.’
The government has expressly referenced activist groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, and Insulate Britain as a reason for the act’s inception. Furthermore, Liberty made the court aware of the high-profile acquittal of activist Greta Thunberg and the government’s criticism of pro-Palestinian marches, connecting these instances to contemporary concerns about the safety of MPs.
Liberty originally sent a pre-action letter to the Home Secretary, maintaining that the regulations were an unlawful unjustified interference with the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, and that the new consultation was not properly consulted on. Later, the court allowed Liberty to bring a legal challenge. The case is against the current Home Secretary, James Cleverly, who has the power to alter the definition. The suit, Liberty v SSHD, is expected to take two days at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.