The Lead Untangles: The right to protest and the laws it does not supersede
Protests – right across the political spectrum – are likely this weekend. But why are so many protestors ending up on the wrong side of the law?
The Lead Untangles will be delivered via email each Friday by The Lead and focuses on a different complex, divisive issue with each edition. The entirety of The Lead Untangles will always be free for all subscribers.
Police have warned of mass arrests if a protest in support of the proscribed Palestine Action goes ahead this weekend.
Those attending this weekend’s protests have been asked by organisers to bring signs saying “I Oppose Genocide, I Support Palestine Action”. Amnesty UK has written to the Met Police stating that the arrest of otherwise peaceful protesters solely for expressing a statement like this was a violation of the UK’s international obligations to protect the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.
It said: “As such, we urge you to instruct your officers to comply with the UK’s international obligations and act with restraint in their response to any such protests that occur, by not arresting protesters who are merely carrying placards that state they oppose genocide and support Palestine Action.”
At the same time, there are expected to be further protests outside hotels housing refugees. It will be almost exactly a year since protests after the Southport killings saw people jailed – and rapidly – for their part in it. These were almost always in relation to violence that came as a result of the protests, but it’s from there that the phrase two-tier Keir was born. The idea being that those involved in those protests – in any way –were treated more harshly than other criminals.
So, what’s going on with the UK’s protest laws?
Context
Since 2020, protest laws in the UK have become stricter. Police in London in particular have been accused of abusing their powers to curb protest after research found that less than 3 per cent of arrests for conspiracy to cause a public nuisance in the past five years resulted in a prosecution. The research also found an almost tenfold rise in the number of arrests in the capital for the offence.
The government included expanded definitions of “serious disruption” and the ability to impose conditions even on solo protests, this included tactics used by climate protesters such as “locking-on” to people or buildings, and anything that causes “more than minor” obstruction or delay, even to deliveries or journeys.
Palestine Action is a direct action group protesting against the genocide in Gaza. Last month, home secretary, Yvette Cooper, proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, after activists caused an estimated £7m of damage to jets at the RAF Brize Norton military base in Oxfordshire.
Stricter laws have increasingly blurred the line between non-violent direct action and offence. In the UK in 2024, climate protesters were arrested at three times the global average rate, with 17 per cent of such protests leading to arrests compared with 6.7 per cent internationally, according to a study by researchers at Bristol University. Offences include disturbances like “locking on” and anything that causes “more than minor” obstruction or delay, even to deliveries or journeys. Last year, the Just Stop Oil activist Phoebe Plummer, 23, who threw soup at the glass covering Van Gogh's “Sunflowers” was jailed for two years.
The (widely-contested) proscription of Palestine Action has blurred them even further.
So far, 221 people have been arrested by police across Britain for suspected offences relating to Palestine Action. These include:
1 person arrested under Section 11 (membership of a proscribed organisation)
58 people arrested under Section 12 (inviting support for, recklessly expressing support for, or arranging a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation)
162 people arrested under Section 13 or 13A (wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation or publishing an image of an article such as a flag or logo in the same circumstances)
There have also been a large number of arrests made in relation to far right protests, such as those that took place in Epping last month. In Epping, 25 people were arrested for violent disorder, criminal damage and assault, and 16 have been charged. Last summer, thousands of far-right protesters were arrested after riots broke out across the country.
What are the UK’s protest laws?
Protesting is legal in the UK, and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the freedom to protest in England and Wales.
It is illegal to use violence, destroy property, hinder vital national infrastructure, or seriously disturb other people during a protest. Strategies that seek to create major disruption, such as tunnelling and locking on are also now illegal, as are pyrotechnic items like flares.
If a protester uses derogatory, abusive, or threatening language or behaves in a way that is meant to disturb, frighten, or upset others, they may be detained and punished under the Public Order Act of 1986.
While those in support of Palestine Action may not commit any of the offences listed above, their right to protest has been curbed by the proscription of the group under the Terrorism Act 2000, which means that expressing support for, or arranging a meeting in support of, Palestine Action is now an offence.
What are people saying?
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “Any action that is in support of a proscribed group in the UK, of course we do not support and the court has confirmed their continued proscription status.
“The home secretary previously said that those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of this organisation, but people should be under no illusion this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of the organisation. But people should be under no illusion – this is not a peaceful or non-violent protest group.
“[Proscription] only applies to the specific and narrow organisation, Palestine Action, whose activities do not reflect or represent the thousands of people across the country who continue to exercise their fundamental rights to protest on different issues.”
Labour MP Lisa Nandy said: “There’s a difference between [peacefully demonstrating] and supporting a proscribed terror organisation that wishes harm on the British people. And I would just urge people to stay away from those sorts of events and to exercise their democratic rights in a peaceful and legitimate way.”
Naomi Klein and Angela Davis are among dozens of international scholars and writers who have signed a letter to the Guardian stating: “We believe that Yvette Cooper’s recent proscription of Palestine Action represents an attack both on the entire pro-Palestine movement and on fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly and protest.”
“As hundreds of people again risk arrest by joining street protests on 9 August and as students and teachers prepare for the start of another turbulent academic year, we express our full solidarity with those mobilising on their campuses or in their workplaces and communities to put an immediate stop to the escalating genocide and to end all UK complicity with Israel’s crimes.”
What happens next?
Protests are set to go ahead, and police forces say they are prepared for mass arrests.
In a statement today, Senior National Coordinator for Prevent and Pursue at Counter Terrorism Policing Vicki Evans said: “Operational plans are in place to ensure this right can be preserved over the coming days with protests expected in several major cities, including London.
“As well as robust plans to respond to activity in support of this proscribed group, resources are also in place to investigate offences that may be identified or reported following such events.”
Late last month, the same High Court judge who originally blocked Palestine Action’s appeal, approved Palestine Action co-founder’s bid to legally challenge the government proscription.
He said: “I consider it reasonably arguable that the proscription order amounts to a disproportionate interference with the article 10 and article 11 (European convention of human rights) rights (freedom of expression and assembly, respectively) of the claimant and others.”
About The Lead Untangles: In an era where misinformation is actively and deliberately used by elected politicians and where advocates and opposers of beliefs state their point of view as fact, sometimes the most useful tool reporters have is to help readers make sense of the world.
The Lead Untangles is delivered each Friday by The Lead and focuses on a different complex, divisive issue with each edition. Is there something you’d like us to untangle, email ed@thelead.uk
About the author: Ella is a freelance journalist specialising in worker's rights, housing, youth culture, social affairs and lifestyle. You can find her work in Tribune Magazine, Huck Magazine, Novara Media, VICE, Dazed, metro.co.uk and - most importantly - here at The Lead.
Good article and points made. Proof reading however leaves much to be desired. Reads like an AI generated article due to unnecessary and verbatim repetition.
Commenting to assist, not criticise.