This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/05/police-to-get-new-powers-to-crack-down-on-repeated-protests-says-home-office

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Police to get new powers to crack down on repeated protests, says Home Office Police to get more anti-protest powers as Palestine Action ban opponents vow ‘escalation’
(about 3 hours later)
Move follows arrest of almost 500 people at latest pro-Palestinian demonstration in London on Saturday Home secretary says police can consider ‘cumulative impact’ of repeated demonstrations to restrict protests
Ministers are to give police new powers to target repeated protests, aimed particularly at cracking down on demonstrations connected to Gaza, the Home Office has said. Ministers are to give police greater powers to restrict protests by allowing them to consider the “cumulative impact” of demonstrations, as organisers of mass protests against the banning of Palestine Action pledged a “major escalation” of their campaign.
The announcement, made the morning after almost 500 people were arrested in London for expressing support for Palestine Action, a proscribed organisation, could allow police to order regular protests to take place at a different site. Shabana Mahmood said on Sunday that repeated large-scale demonstrations over Gaza had caused “considerable fear” for the Jewish community. The home secretary promised to amend the Public Order Act 1986 to explicitly allow the police to take account of frequent protests on local areas in order to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies.
Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, will also look at all anti-protest laws, with the possibility that powers to ban some demonstrations outright could be strengthened. Her words prompted a pledge by Defend Our Juries to escalate the demonstrations in support of Palestine Action over 10 days in November. “The home secretary’s extraordinary new affront to our democracy will only fuel the growing backlash to the ban,” a spokesperson said.
The measures have been announced after almost 500 people were arrested this weekend in London for expressing support for Palestine Action. Jewish community leaders, police and Keir Starmer had called on Palestine Action protesters to refrain from demonstrating after Thursday’s killing of two people in the terror attack on a Manchester synagogue.
Mahmood will also look at all anti-protest laws, with the possibility that powers to ban some demonstrations outright could be strengthened.
Speaking on Sunday to Sky News, Mahmood said she believed there was “a gap in the law” that required action, and that she aimed to act at speed.Speaking on Sunday to Sky News, Mahmood said she believed there was “a gap in the law” that required action, and that she aimed to act at speed.
Under the planned powers, Mahmood will push through rapid changes to the Public Order Act 1986, allowing police to consider the “cumulative impact” of repeated protests. Details would be set out “in due course”, the announcement said. “What I will be making explicit is that cumulative disruption, that is to say the frequency of particular protests in particular places, is in and of itself, a reason for the police to be able to restrict and place conditions,” she said.
If a protest has caused what a Home Office statement called “repeated disorder” at the same site for repeated weeks, police would be able to order the organisers to move it elsewhere, with anyone who fails to obey risking arrest. Speaking later to BBC1 One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Mahmood denied this was about banning protest: “This is not about a ban. This is about restrictions and conditions that would enable the police to maybe put further time restrictions or move those protests to other places.
Mahmood, the statement added, would also review existing legislation to ensure that powers were sufficient and being consistently applied. These included police powers to ban some protests completely.
Asked on Sky about the plan, Mahmood said: “What I will be making explicit is that cumulative disruption, that is to say the frequency of particular protests in particular places, is in and of itself, a reason for the police to be able to restrict and place conditions.”
This could involve police ordering protest organisers to move the event, or restrict the timescale, she added.
Speaking later to BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Mahmood denied this was about banning protest. “This is not about a ban. This is about restrictions and conditions that would enable the police to maybe put further time restrictions or move those protests to other places,” she said.
“What I’m allowing is for the police to be able to take cumulative disruption into account, and it is important.”“What I’m allowing is for the police to be able to take cumulative disruption into account, and it is important.”
The powers appear to be aimed at both mass pro-Gaza demonstrations, which took place in London and some other cities over a period of weeks, as well as those held in support of Palestine Action. The new application of the law would be applied to static protests as well as marches and rallies, Home Office sources said. Ministers plan to introduce the new powers through primary legislation to sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act.
On Saturday, police arrested about 500 people at the latest such protest. It took place despite ministers and Keir Starmer asking that it be postponed after this week’s deadly attack on a synagogue in Manchester. It remains unclear whether the planned punishment under cumulative impact will match that of other protest powers. Currently, protest organisers face up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £2,500 or both for participating in a banned protest.
Mahmood indicated this was directly connected to the proposed extra powers, saying: “It’s been clear to me in conversations in the last couple of days that there is a gap in the law and there is an inconsistency of practice.” The Liberal Democrats warned that the plans for further protest restrictions would lead to a greater waste of police time while letting off those inciting violence.
Max Wilkinson, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, said: “The Conservatives made a total mess of protest laws. I fear Labour seem to be following them down the same path, instead of properly reforming these powers to focus on the real criminals and hate preachers.”
Legal sources have told the Guardian that the plans could be challenged in the courts, because they mirror failed moves by the former Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman to curb protests.
The court of appeal in June upheld the original judgment in what the civil rights organisation Liberty – which brought the legal challenge – hailed as a major legal victory.
The case centred on legislation passed in June 2023 – without a parliamentary vote – that reduced the threshold for when police could crack down on protests, meaning the law covered anything that was deemed as causing “more than minor” disruption. In May 2024, the high court agreed with Liberty that Braverman’s legislation had been unlawful.
Sign up to First EditionSign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion
She continued: “I’ll be taking measures immediately to put that right, and I will be reviewing our wider protest legislation as well to make sure the arrangements we have can meet the scale of the challenge that we face, which is protecting the right to protest, but ensuring that our communities can go about their daily business without feeling intimidated, and also that public order can be maintained.” Home Office sources pointed out that Liberty won the 2023 case because ministers tried to change the definition of “serious public disorder”, lowering it to cover any crime “more than minor” through a statutory instrument. The measure to block so-called cumulative protests disappeared when the entire statutory instrument was struck down.
Mahmood defended the mass arrests at protests against the ban on Palestine Action, and the decision to proscribe the group under terrorism laws, saying: “People might not like that decision, they might have questions about the way that the anti-terror laws work in this country, but there is no excuse for holding up placards supporting a banned organisation. That will always be met with a police response.” Officials believe the measures this time will be more robust because they are not trying to lower the threshold and are planning to use primary legislation.
After Saturday’s protest, the chair of the Metropolitan police federation said officers policing protests in London were “emotionally and physically exhausted”. Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said: “The police already have immense powers to restrict protests – handing them even more would undermine our rights further while failing to keep people safe from violence like the horrific and heartbreaking antisemitic attack in Manchester.
Paula Dodds said: “Enough is enough. Our concentration should be on keeping people safe at a time when the country is on heightened alert from a terrorist attack. And instead officers are being drawn in to facilitate these relentless protests.” “During times of fear people understandably want to see action, but restricting protest further is likely to fuel tensions by taking away legal and safe ways for people to make their voices heard.
The planned new power follows protest-related measures in the crime and policing bill going through parliament, which would ban the possession of face coverings or fireworks or flares at protests, and criminalise the climbing of certain war memorials. “This announcement comes at a time when it is already getting harder and harder to exercise our right to protest without falling foul of ever expanding anti-protest laws. Our ability to use protest to challenge governments and stand up for what we believe in is central to having a healthy, functioning democracy. It must be upheld.”
The new application of the law will be applied to both static protests as well as marches and rallies, Home Office sources said. It remains unclear whether the planned punishment under cumulative impact will match that of other protest powers. Currently, protest organisers face up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £2,500 or both for participating in a banned protest. Defend Our Juries said there would be mass civil disobedience defying the ban over days from 18 to 28 November, in the lead up to and throughout the judicial review.
Legal sources have told the Guardian that the plans will be challenged in the courts, and closely mirror moves by the former Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman to curb protests, which were successfully challenged. A new pledge form is being launched today by Defend Our Juries, which asks its supporters to “book time off now, and sign the form to tell us where you’ll be taking action”, adding that there would be civil disobedience “in key cities and towns” across Britain.
In June, the court of appeal upheld the original judgment in what the civil rights organisation Liberty, which brought the legal challenge, hailed as a major legal victory. Under the home secretary’s planned changes, if a protest has caused what a Home Office statement called “repeated disorder” at the same site for repeated weeks, police would be able to order the organisers to move it elsewhere, with anyone who failed to obey risking arrest.
The case centred on legislation passed in June 2023, without a parliamentary vote, that reduced the threshold for when police could crack down on protests, meaning the law covered anything that was deemed as causing “more than minor” disruption. In May 2024, the high court agreed with Liberty that Braverman’s new legislation had been unlawful. Mahmood, the statement added, would also review existing legislation to ensure that powers were sufficient and being consistently applied. These included police powers to ban some protests completely.
The planned new powers follow protest-related measures in the crime and policing bill going through parliament, which would ban the possession of face coverings or fireworks or flares at protests, and criminalise the climbing of certain war memorials.