header-logo header-logo

07 May 2025
Issue: 8115 / Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-detail

Court deals blow to Henry VIII powers

Civil liberties campaigners have urged the Home Secretary to scrap laws curbing protest rights, after the Court of Appeal held the legislation was introduced unlawfully

Under the Public Order Act 1986, the police can impose conditions on public processions and assemblies which they reasonably believe may result in ‘serious disruption to the life of the community’. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 gave the Home Secretary power—often referred to as a ‘Henry VIII power’—to make regulations defining what this phrase meant.

In 2023, the then Home Secretary Suella Braverman introduced regulations giving the police power to restrict protests where the disruption was ‘more than minor’. A previous attempt to do this via amendments to the Public Order Bill was voted down in Parliament.

Ruling in R (on the application of the National Council for Civil Liberties) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 571 last week, however, the court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the regulations were ultra vires.

Delivering the main judgment, Lord Justice Underhill said the words ‘serious disruption’ set a relatively high threshold for police intervention. Therefore, Braverman could not reasonably change this to mean ‘more than minor’.

The three appeal judges did not uphold the High Court’s decision that the government carried out an unfairly selective consultation. Underhill LJ said the government was entitled to seek the views of policing bodies but not protest groups as it was not a formal consultation.

Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty, hailed the decision as a ‘victory for Parliament and the rule of law.’ Liberty has called on the government to review hundreds of arrests against Just Stop Oil and other protesters.

Shameem Ahmad, CEO of Public Law Project, which intervened in the case, said: ‘PLP believes the public deserves better than backdoor law-making that allows their fundamental rights to be diminished by ministerial decree.

‘The public deserves assurance that legislation impacting their daily lives has undergone Parliamentary debate and thorough scrutiny. These restrictive protest laws should now be permanently abandoned and Henry VIII powers relegated to the annals of history where they belong.’

Issue: 8115 / Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll