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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll