UK Campaigners Challenge Expanded Police Powers Over Repeat Protests

On March 11, 2026, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stood before the House of Commons to announce a fresh round of police powers targeting repeat protests — powers that civil liberties groups say would give officers the ability to ban demonstrations based not on what protesters are doing, but on what previous, unrelated protesters have done before them [1]. The announcement capped a years-long escalation that has seen three anti-protest bills enacted in just three years, a fourth now working through Parliament, and a growing chorus of international condemnation from organizations including the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch [2][3].

For campaigners, the stakes extend far beyond any single march or sit-in. At issue is whether the United Kingdom — a country that prides itself as a cradle of parliamentary democracy — is systematically dismantling the right to peaceful dissent.

The Legislative Ratchet: From 2022 to 2026

The current confrontation has its roots in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA), passed under Boris Johnson's Conservative government in response to Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protests. That law broadened police discretion to impose conditions on protests that caused "serious disruption to the life of the community" [4].

The Public Order Act 2023 went further, creating entirely new criminal offenses — including "locking on" to objects and infrastructure, tunneling, and interfering with key national infrastructure — and introducing Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs), civil orders that enable courts to restrict an individual's movements, associations, and internet use based on as few as two prior protest-related incidents [5]. Breaching an SDPO is itself a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called the law's restrictions "neither necessary nor proportionate" and urged the UK to reverse it [6].

When the Labour government took office in July 2024 promising a reset, campaigners hoped for relief. Instead, the Crime and Policing Bill, introduced in 2025, proposed expanding police powers still further [7]. Its most controversial provision — Amendment 372 — would amend the Public Order Act 1986 to require senior officers to consider the "cumulative disruption" of previous protests when deciding whether to impose conditions or bans on new ones [8].

"Cumulative Disruption": The Power to Pre-Empt Protest

The cumulative disruption provision is the flashpoint in the current battle. Under existing law, police can impose conditions on a march or assembly if they reasonably believe it will cause serious disruption. Under the proposed amendment, officers would also weigh disruption caused by entirely separate, previous protests in the same area — even those organized by different groups on different issues [8].

Liberty, the UK's oldest civil liberties organization, has warned this could result in "borough or city-wide bans on protests, simply because a different demonstration took place the week before" [8]. There is no statutory definition of "cumulative" and no limit on the geographic area that could be restricted. Critically, the provision would apply regardless of whether the earlier protests involved any disorder or law-breaking.

"The ability to stand up for what matters to us is central to a healthy, functioning democracy," Liberty argued in a briefing on the bill. The organization noted that virtually every major social advance in British history — from women's suffrage to LGBTQ+ rights to the two-day weekend — "wouldn't exist without people repeatedly campaigning" [8].

Amnesty International UK's Law and Human Rights Director, Tom Southerden, was blunter: "The 'new' powers announced by the Home Secretary today are not new at all" but rather "a reheat of powers that the last Government tried to push through under regulations that the courts found to be unlawful" [3]. He questioned whether "the government really is proposing to limit how many times members of the public can protest against the government's own decisions," calling the suggestion either "ludicrous" or a "cynical attempt at looking tough."

The Numbers Behind the Crackdown

Official Home Office statistics paint a striking picture of how existing powers are already being used. Between June 2022 and March 2025, police imposed conditions on 640 protests across England and Wales — 465 processions and 175 assemblies [9]. The Metropolitan Police alone accounted for 89 percent of all interventions, applying conditions to 570 protests over that period.

Source: UK Home Office

Data as of Oct 1, 2025CSV

The data reveals a sharp escalation: conditions were imposed on just 40 assemblies in the year ending March 2024, but that number surged to 132 in the following year — a more than threefold increase driven largely by restrictions on pro-Palestinian marches following the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza conflict [9].

A total of 519 people were arrested for breaching protest conditions over the same period, with a notably unusual demographic profile: women comprised 43 percent of those arrested, far higher than the 16 percent female share of arrests in England and Wales generally [9]. The largest age cohort was 20-to-29-year-olds (156 arrests), but 73 people aged 60 to 69 were also detained — a reflection of the broad demographic spread of protest movements from climate activism to Palestine solidarity [9].

Meanwhile, research from Global Witness has documented a stark enforcement disparity: of the 2,226 climate activists arrested in London between 2022 and mid-2025, approximately three-quarters were charged — more than three times the prosecution rate for far-right activists arrested over the same period [10].

Harsh Sentences and High-Profile Cases

The statistics tell only part of the story. Individual cases have drawn international attention and raised questions about proportionality.

In July 2024, five Just Stop Oil activists were sentenced to between two and five years in prison — not for blocking roads or damaging property, but for participating in a Zoom call to plan a protest. The presiding judge, Christopher Mayling, handed down what were believed to be the longest sentences for peaceful protest in British legal history [2]. On appeal in March 2025, the High Court ruled the sentences "manifestly excessive," but only marginally reduced most of them — the five-year sentence was cut to four years [2].

Trudi Warner, a retired social worker, was arrested and charged with contempt of court for standing silently outside a courthouse holding a sign reading "Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience." The High Court ultimately dismissed the case as "fanciful," finding no evidence that any juror had been influenced, but not before Warner endured months of legal jeopardy [2].

In July 2025, the government proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, making it a criminal offense to express support for the group. More than 2,300 people have since been arrested in connection with protests against the ban [2].

The Courts Push Back

Judicial resistance has provided campaigners with some of their most significant victories. In spring 2024, the High Court ruled that the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully by using secondary legislation to lower the threshold for police intervention in protests from "serious disruption" to "more than minor disruption" [11]. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling in May 2025, confirming the regulations were ultra vires — beyond the government's legal authority [11].

That judicial defeat is precisely why the government is now pursuing primary legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill rather than regulations — a route that is harder for courts to strike down.

In the House of Lords, the bill has faced significant resistance. On March 9, 2026, peers debated Amendment 369, which would have created a new statutory right to protest in UK law — a protection that currently exists only through the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment was defeated, but the debate exposed deep unease on all sides of the chamber about the direction of travel [12].

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the UK's statutory human rights body, has intervened directly, submitting formal advice to Parliament warning that provisions in the bill risk incompatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights — the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly [13].

International Condemnation

The international response has been unusually sharp for a mature democracy. In January 2026, Human Rights Watch published a 47-page report titled "Silencing the Streets," documenting what it called a systematic campaign against peaceful protest in the UK [14]. "The UK is adopting protest-control tactics imposed in countries where democratic safeguards are collapsing," said Lydia Gall, the organization's senior Europe researcher [2].

HRW's World Report 2026 devoted extensive coverage to the UK's protest restrictions, placing Britain alongside authoritarian states in its assessment of threats to assembly rights [15]. Amnesty International has characterized the cumulative legislation as a "shameless attempt to prevent people from being able to make their voices heard on the issues that matter most to them" [5].

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, a parliamentary body comprising members of both Houses, warned that the combined effect of the new measures would "likely have a chilling effect on the right to protest in England and Wales" [4].

The Government's Case

Ministers have framed the new powers as necessary to protect communities from persistent disruption. The government points to months-long protest encampments, weekly marches that have strained police resources, and incidents of disorder at demonstrations as evidence that existing powers are insufficient [1].

Policing Minister Diana Johnson told the Commons that the cumulative impact provision was needed because "the law currently requires officers to assess each protest in isolation, even when communities are being subjected to repeated disruption week after week" [1]. The government also launched a formal review of protest legislation in December 2025, with a report originally due in February 2026, though it has yet to be published [4].

Police leaders have broadly supported additional powers. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner's request for a prohibition on al-Quds Day processions in March 2026, citing "tensions created by international conflict" and the risk of serious disorder, was granted by the Home Secretary — demonstrating how existing Section 13 powers already allow outright bans on marches [1].

What Comes Next

The Crime and Policing Bill continues its passage through the House of Lords, where the cumulative disruption provisions face further amendment votes in the coming weeks [12]. Liberty, Amnesty International, and a coalition of more than 40 civil society organizations are lobbying peers to strip the protest provisions from the bill entirely [8].

Meanwhile, Big Brother Watch's landmark legal challenge to the Metropolitan Police's use of live facial recognition technology at protests — heard in the High Court in January 2026 — could establish important precedents about surveillance and the chilling effect on assembly rights [16]. A ruling is expected in the coming months.

The broader context makes the outcome particularly consequential. As the UK navigates the geopolitical fallout of the Iran war — with pro-peace protests, energy price demonstrations, and anti-war marches all intensifying — the tools the government is building to manage dissent will face their most significant test. Whether Britain's legal system can sustain a balance between public order and democratic expression may depend on battles being fought not in the streets, but in committee rooms and courtrooms over the next several months.