header-logo header-logo

Court deals blow to Henry VIII powers

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll