Fact Check: New ruling reverts protest law to require 'serious disruption' for police action
What We Know
In April 2023, the UK government introduced new legislation aimed at addressing disruptive protest tactics, particularly slow marching, which had been used to block roads and disrupt daily life. This legislation was designed to clarify the definition of "serious disruption to the life of the community," which is a key threshold for police intervention under the Public Order Act (POA) (source-1). The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, stated that this new law was necessary to provide police with the clarity they needed to act against protests that significantly disrupt public life (source-1).
The Public Order Act 1986 was amended to include a clearer definition of "serious disruption," which is essential for police to exercise their powers effectively. The amendments were part of a broader set of changes introduced by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which had already enhanced police powers to manage protests (source-2). This legislation allows police to intervene before chaos ensues, particularly in situations where they believe protests will cause serious disruption (source-1).
Analysis
The claim that the new ruling reverts the protest law to require "serious disruption" for police action is accurate. The legislation introduced in April 2023 clearly defines what constitutes serious disruption, thereby allowing police to act when such disruption is anticipated. This aligns with the amendments made to the Public Order Act, which were intended to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to manage protests effectively (source-2).
However, it is important to consider the implications of these changes. Critics argue that the broad definition of serious disruption could lead to excessive police powers and potential infringement on the right to protest (source-3). Organizations like Liberty have raised concerns about the potential for misuse of these powers, suggesting that the legislation could disproportionately affect peaceful protests (source-3).
The sources used in this analysis are credible, coming from official government publications and reputable human rights organizations. The government’s own statements and the legislative texts provide a reliable foundation for understanding the changes made to protest laws (source-1, source-2).
Conclusion
The claim that a new ruling reverts the protest law to require "serious disruption" for police action is True. The recent legislation indeed clarifies and reinforces the criteria under which police can intervene in protests, emphasizing the need for serious disruption as a prerequisite for action. While the intent is to manage disruptive protests effectively, the potential for misuse of these powers raises significant concerns regarding civil liberties.
