Liberty launches judicial review challenge arguing protest law is “unjustified interference” with Parliamentary sovereignty
The National Council for Civil Liberties, also known as Liberty, is threatening a judicial review of the Home Secretary's efforts to widen the circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on people organising or taking part in protests.
The campaign group says the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023, which came into force last week (15 June), is ultra vires and would be an unjustified interference with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The Serious Disruption Regulations give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause 'more than minor' disruption.
Parliament initially rejected the attempt to amend the Public Order Act 1986 last year when the Government tried to introduce the changes via an amendment to its Public Order Bill.
Braverman then sought to make the same amendments through the Serious Disruption Regulations, which were laid before Parliament in April of this year and passed last week.
Liberty says it believes this is the first time a government has sought to make changes to the law through secondary legislation that have already been rejected when introduced in draft primary legislation.
In its pre-action protocol letter, the group proposes the following four grounds:
- The Serious Disruption Regulations are ultra vires because they would be made for the impermissible purpose and/or have the impermissible effect of lowering the threshold for the exercise of the power to impose restrictions.
- The Serious Disruption Regulations are ultra vires because they would be made for the impermissible purpose and/or have the impermissible effect of circumventing a scheme established by Parliament.
- A decision to make the Serious Disruption Regulations would be unlawful by reason of being an unjustified interference with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
- A decision to make the Serious Disruption Regulations would be vitiated by procedural unfairness as a result of the Secretary of State's one-sided consultation.
The letter before claim notes that in order to avoid the judicial review application going ahead, the Secretary of State must confirm they will not proceed to make the Serious Disruption Regulations even if they are approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
In a statement, Katy Watts, Lawyer at Liberty, said: "The wording of the Government's new law is so vague that anything deemed 'more than a minor' disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it.
"In essence, this gives the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the Government doesn't agree with."
She added: "This not only violates our rights, but the way it's been done is simply unlawful. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the Home Secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.
"We've launched this legal action to ensure this overreach is checked and that the Government is not allowed to put itself above the law to do whatever it wants. It's really important that the Government respects the law and that today's decision is reversed immediately."
The Secretary of State has until 20 June to respond to the letter.
Adam Carey
