13th October 2025
Legal Restrictions on the Right to Protest
Legal restrictions on the right to protest have increased significantly in the last few years as a result of two new pieces of legislation: the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (“Policing”) Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023.
The Policing Act further restricts what forms of protest are permissible. Police may restrict or ban protests that cause more than ‘minor disruption’, that are noisy, that are within the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, and/ or obstruct the highway. The police are also now given powers to restrict static protests and one-person protests.
The Public Order Act gives the police even more powers to restrict protests. . It expands police powers to stop and search. It gives them powers to ban people from participating in protests and limiting who they may associate with. It also creates new criminal offences for actions that might form part of a protest such as as locking-on, tunnelling, obstructing major transport works and/ or interfering with key national infrastructure.
For a more detailed analysis of these two Acts look at Liberty’s website. (1)
In the courts there has been an erosion of the legal defences that protestors may use to justify their action. The Campaign Against Climate Change gives this summary:
- In 2021, the Court of Appeal, although it overturned the convictions for the ‘Stansted 15’, upheld the original judge’s ruling that the defence of ‘necessity’ did not apply to protesters.
- In 2022, the Court of Appeal decided, after intervention from the then Attorney General, Suella Braverman, that protesters accused of ‘significant’ criminal damage cannot use as a defence their right to protest under the European Convention of Human Rights.
- In 2024, after intervention from another Attorney General, Victoria Prentis, the Court of Appeal said the “beliefs and motivation” of a defendant do not constitute lawful excuse for causing damage to a property
- The principle of ‘Hoffmann’s bargain‘ following a case in 2006, held that motives of conscience and intention to avert a greater harm would be taken into account and lead to more lenient sentencing. From the case of the Stansted 15 onwards, this principle has been lost.” (2)
The Green Tau 