Anti-protest law modified
High Court loosens restrictions on demonstrations
May 2025
No government likes protests. They demonstrate, all too visibly, that the public – or a part of them at least – is not happy with them or the status quo. Depending on the degree of despotism, demonstrations are controlled or in the worst of countries, banned altogether. China has an extremely restrictive policy backed up by a massive and all pervasive surveillance system making protests all but impossible. Gulf states are also highly restrictive.
Demonstrations are often how change happens. Britain has many examples throughout its history of protest bringing change. Wat Tyler and the plight of the poor (serfs); the Poll Tax riots in 1381 and 1970; the Prayer Book rebellion; the Iraq War protest and of course the Suffragettes. There are many more examples. They do not necessarily bring about immediate change. They do show to politicians and others the depth of feeling that people have about their cause.
The last Conservative government was no different to others in disliking protests. What upset them the most were the climate protests. Just Stop Oil and other groups such as Extinction Rebellion, engaged in a series of eye-catching protests which shone a light on the government’s failure (in their eyes) to do enough to stop fossil fuel extraction.
Suella Braverman, then the Home Secretary resented these protests and introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act in 2022 in an attempt to seriously curtail them. Controversially they introduced a change in the threshold wording from ‘serious disruption’ to ‘more than minor’. This was done by using a statutory instrument not after proper debate in the House of Commons. This had the effect of almost banning all protests.
Successful challenge
Liberty and other groups successfully challenged this in the courts and the new Labour government decided to appeal. This seems to demonstrate that the dislike of protest is not a party political matter: governments just do not like challenge. Last week (May 2) the Appeal Court ruled that ‘serious’ is not ‘more than minor’ and said that the anti-protest laws were introduced unlawfully. The regulations gave police almost unlimited powers to prevent protests taking place. Many were arrested using these powers.
The protests which so upset the previous government concerned fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is extremely powerful and well-funded. Several of the various think tanks based in and around 55 Tufton Street are thought to be funded by them. These include: The Tax Payers Alliance; Civitas; Adam Smith Institute; Global Warming Policy Foundation; Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs. Their funding is opaque but is thought to be mainly from fossil fuel companies such as the Koch corporation in the USA among others. They have frequent access to the media being interviewed on various BBC and commercial stations without ever being asked ‘who funds you?’ Their opinions often appear in newspaper columns. They employ large numbers of lobbyists and enjoy close contact with ministers and civil servants. They claim to be influential in forming policies to suit their interests. It was admitted by Rishi Sunak when he was prime minister that the Policy Exchange – another of these think tanks funded by Exxon Mobil – had drafted the anti-protest legislation.
Protest is crucial to enable the ordinary person to make their voice heard. As with the arms industry we highlighted in a previous post, governments are dominated by commercial concerns, the need for growth and the enormous power and influence of companies and their army of lobbyists. Around £2bn per annum is spent by firms on this activity. It is welcome news that the Appeal Court has ruled against the government and its ‘draconian’ anti-protest legislation.
Previous
♬ 
