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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll