As new protest laws take hold, activists face increasing arrests for minor actions, how will the Labour government balance civil liberties with public order?
The flashing blue lights in the rearview mirror were nothing new to Robert. As an activist, he had been pulled over more times than he could count, the routine almost second nature by now. He calmly signalled, pulling his car to the side of the road, already reaching for his license and registration. But this time, something felt different.
On August 8th this year, 28-year-old Robert Gordon was arrested under the Public Order Act 2023—not for protesting, but for the crime of possessing a bike lock while near a protest he wasn’t a part of. “There was nothing I could do. You feel pretty powerless in that situation so I just resigned my self to it. I knew I would be arrested the second they ran my name and saw I’d been arrested for previous protesting stuff,” he says.
Robert’s arrest highlights the increasing scrutiny faced by activists like him. He is a member of the environmental protest group Animal Rising, a movement advocating for animal rights and a plant-based food system, Robert has dedicated his life to social change. “I’ve always cared about making the world a better place,” he explains, “and making it a better place for animals seemed to be where my interests were, so that’s how I got involved.”
This recent arrest didn’t happen in isolation. It follows the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, both of which have drawn heavy criticism from human rights organisations. Amnesty International called the legislation “deeply authoritarian,” reflecting the growing concern over the erosion of civil liberties in the name of public order.
As these laws reshape the landscape of protest, it raises a crucial question: How are these new regulations impacting the right to protest, and what does the future hold for activism as protests continue to erupt across England and Wales.
Robert was arrested for possessing a bike lock under the new legislation that criminalises the act of “locking-on” and even being equipped to “lock-on”—a protest technique where activists attach themselves to people, objects, or buildings. The arrest occurred because there was a potential protest nearby at Drax Power Station, a large biomass facility in North Yorkshire, England.
Although the protest was ultimately shut down by police before it could begin, and Robert never approached the site, the possession of the bike lock was enough to result in his arrest under the new laws.
Robert recalls, “I was ten minutes passed Drax on my way home to York from visiting a friend when they arrested me. The police said they were going to search my car and that they were looking for equipment to lock on. I told them I had bike lock but no key because my bike was back at my house. They also found three small suitcase locks, I tried to tell them I couldn’t even get them around a finger if I wanted to, but they were like having none of it and they just kept spinning things out of proportion.”
The impact of his arrest has been more than just a temporary inconvenience— “They seized my car — it cost me 192 pound to get it back, and they still have my wallet, laptop, ID’s, my phone. I’ve put in a police complaint, and I will probably sue them, but yeah, it’s ridiculous that just for driving near a protest site near where I live, I’m almost guaranteed to get pulled over because I protested in the past” he says.
Robert reflects, “if I’d have been anywhere else in the country, I’d be fine. But I live in York, near the power station. Am I not allowed to leave my house because a group’s planned a protest? It is actually ridiculous. When the legislation first came in, political commentators were joking about how you could be arrested for having a bike lock—and that’s literally what happened. It was perfectly innocent. It could happen to anyone.”
Robert believes his experience is a telling example of how the police’s approach to protesters has shifted since the introduction of the Public Order Act, “I think it shows how far the police are willing to go to shut down legitimate protest, to the point where they take it too far and it’s very hard to hold them to account when they don’t even give you the paperwork. There is genuinely no record of my arrest on my person,” he says.
Kevin Blowe, from the Network for Police Monitoring (NETPOL), sheds light on the broader implications of such tactics. He refers to incidents like Robert’s as “bullshit arrests,” explaining that they’re often intended just to remove someone from the scene.“The things that are most likely to intimidate people aren’t the actual arrests because there’s a limit on the time you can hold somebody in a police station cell. It’s being left on pre-charge bail, waiting the outcome of your release and whether you’re going to be charged. That’s what really, really drains people.”
Kevin highlights how these techniques undermine protest, “if you’ve got to wait six months to find out a decision on whether you’re going to be charged for an offence, and in that time, there’s a whole bunch of things you can’t do. There are lots of people I know who, for the duration of that time, just stopped campaigning. That’s incredibly demoralising and distressing and that’s probably the most effective tool that’s used.”
Yet, despite the pressure from these laws and police strategies, many remain undeterred and continue to take to the streets. Over the past year, hundreds of thousands across the UK have participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations, demanding a ceasefire to end Israel’s military action in Gaza. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), told the Guardian these protests have been“extraordinary” in their impact.
Kevin interprets the continuation of these protests as a testament to people’s determination and sense of urgency. “In some ways, the huge numbers of people that have come out on the demonstrations around Gaza and continue to call for a ceasefire is a testament to people’s perseverance,” he says. However, he notes that despite this widespread activism, it hasn’t shifted the government’s stance on arming Israel or introducing sanctions. “Which is why some people then say, we’ve got to take action ourselves because there are no other choices,” he says.
Legal expert David Mead offers a different perspective, suggesting that the legislation may not be as restrictive as it seems. He points to the ongoing Gaza protests as evidence that public demonstrations can still occur. “With the Gaza protests at the moment, people are still protesting, and the police aren’t doing anything to stop it really,” he explains. “So it’s not to say that the legislation has made it impossible, but it’s made it much more uncertain. For instance, when I leave my house in the morning to protest, it’s much less certain what’s going to happen to me. If I will be arrested or not.”
In contrast, Independent MP for Liverpool West Derby, Ian Byrne criticises the new laws as a serious threat to democratic expression. He labels the recent Acts as “one of the most pernicious Acts ever laid down in Parliament,” drawing a stark comparison to historical protest movements. “You think about the great protest movements of the last 150 years, like the suffragette movement. It’s remarkable how the legislation is going to shut down democratic opportunities. It’s remarkable how the legislation is going to shut down democratic opportunities. Opportunities for people to voice their opinions,” he says.
Having spearheaded various campaigns, including the ‘Enough is Enough’ initiative, which addresses the cost of living crisis, Byrne emphasises the importance of activism in driving societal change. “Building movements is about giving people a voice, making sure they have the opportunity to express their opinions,” he asserts. “I’ve always seen the power of it. My campaign ‘Enough is Enough’ is another example of building up that massive pressure because, let’s face it, most of the change in this society comes from you.”
However, the recent surge in protests and civil unrest has sparked a debate over the balance between the right to protest and maintaining public order. Former justice secretary Robert Buckland weighed in on the issue, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “Clearly the engagement of the rights of protesters with the rights of the rest of the public to go about their lawful business is a delicate balance to be struck. I think this bill does strike the right balance.”
This call for public order has gained urgency following a series of violent riots across the UK in July 2024. These far-right extremist riots, which erupted in response to false claims that the perpetrator of a mass stabbing on July 29 was a Muslim and an asylum seeker, lasted for six days and shook communities across the country.
Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, expressed strong backing for the police, stating they have the government’s full support to take “all necessary action to keep our streets safe” from what he termed “thugs” who “sow hate.” He emphasised the difference between exercising freedom of expression and engaging in violent disorder, declaring, “The right to freedom of expression and the violent disorder we have witnessed are distinctly separate… violence of any kind is unacceptable.”
In response to the unrest, counter-protests erupted across various cities including Newcastle, Bristol, Birmingham, London, and Brighton. Thousands of anti-racism activists gathered to form human shields around asylum centres, displaying signs with messages like “refugees welcome” and “reject racism, try therapy.”
MP Ian Byrne has seen the impact of these events firsthand, particularly with the Southport riots occurring near his constituency. He reflects on the delicate line between legitimate protest and dangerous extremism, saying, “People should have the democratic ability to come together and challenge what they feel is the policy which doesn’t align with their views. But it’s when it crosses over into hate—when people want to burn down hotels or attack mosques—that’s not protest. That’s Islamophobia, and it’s a real danger to society.”
Reflecting on the broader implications of these riots, Byrne is deeply concerned about the potential for further demonisation of protesters. “There’ll be lots of pressures from right-wing outlets and the right wing in the country. There’s going to be a lot of debates in Parliament around how we ensure that protest, which is an absolutely key tenet of democracy, has the ability to flourish. But it’s got to be done within the confines of the law,” he says. “What we saw weeks ago was absolutely abhorrent. That was not protest; that was racism, thuggery, and a terrifying glimpse into the future. We must make sure it stays within the constraints of that remit.”
Legal expert David raises concerns about the legitimacy of protests, whether peaceful or not, arguing that taking the law into one’s own hands to make a political statement poses philosophical difficulties. He asserts, “It becomes difficult, I do have real philosophical problems with taking the law into your own hands to make a political point. I think that becomes very difficult. I mean that’s what a democracy is designed to manage. Democratic political process is there to manage those competing tensions, the allocation of very scarce resources, and to ensure that the people who are not powerful or the strong enough or loud enough get their way.”
David further critiques the use of protests by saying, “That’s why elections, etc, exist. So then, to sort of contort that and say, ‘Well, elections don’t work, so we climate change activists can use our power to get what we want’… seems to be problematic. I’ll be honest; It’s a problematic position to adopt when the point of democracy and elections and things like that is to manage exactly the things that they are then rejecting in their protest.”
This perspective on protest rights isn’t limited to the UK. Amnesty International’s recent report highlights a troubling trend across Europe, where the right to peaceful assembly is increasingly under threat. The report details how states are stigmatising, criminalising, and repressing peaceful protesters, imposing unwarranted and harsh restrictions to stifle dissent.
David reflects this broader concern, noting, “I don’t think any countries are opening it up and being more facilitative and permissive. The very worst position is everything is remaining neutral, which is generally reasonably restrictive.” Activist Robert agrees, stating, “I think the trends of clamping down on protests are reflected across Europe. I think in some instances it is worse in the UK, and I do think it’s going to get worse before getting better.”
In May 2024, the High Court ruled that the Government acted unlawfully by passing The Public Order Act 2023 that granted the police nearly unrestricted powers to control protests. This decision followed a significant legal challenge by the human rights group Liberty. The Court has ordered the law to be overturned, finding that former Home Secretary Suella Braverman enacted these anti-protest measures in June 2023 without proper parliamentary authorisation.
Kevin offers his critique, “The ability of a home secretary to decide what is an operational policing matter is obviously very dangerous right but on the other hand there is a big caveat which is the expectation of who else decides what it is, what it is that is considered to be serious disruption. Because if it’s the police, it’s not really going to be any different from Vichy Patel and Suella Braverman’s view of what constitutes serious disruption in a protest sense,” he says.
As these trends continue to shape the landscape of protest across Europe, attention turns to how these dynamics will evolve under the new Labour government. The Conservative government announced they would appeal the High Court’s decision but now the future of protest in the UK will likely hinge on the new Labour government’s approach to balancing civil liberties with public order. They have not yet commented on the appeal.
Kevin reflects on the current political climate, “I think the instincts of Keir Starmer, in particular, and the government in general, and Labour have quite a bad reputation in government of being quite authoritarian anyway,” he says.
He anticipates that, as is common with governments facing crises, Labour might introduce even more restrictive legislation, operating under the assumption that tougher measures will suppress protests. However, Kevin argues that the issues raised by social justice, racial justice, and climate justice campaigners persist despite these measures.
Kevin continues, “I think the current government has the same cross-the-board approach to human rights, despite the fact that the idea that Keir Starmer was ever associated with being a human rights lawyer fills me with constant astonishment still. But there are certain issues around national security, foreign policy and policing, where there is a fundamentally authoritarian streak, and where this government, in particular, is not going to challenge a kind of a conventional approach to any of those things on the basis of an acceptance or even a basic argument about civil liberties.”
MP Ian Byrne, reflecting on the future of protest under the Labour government, say “it’s a very interesting political debate to be had about the absolute importance of the ability to protest, but then what tips over there into illegality. I think that’s something which is, as a country, we need to have those debates, we need those discussions. But I think the legislation that the Conservatives have laid down over the last few years on anti-strikes, anti-protest, I think it’s draconian and I think it should go. I have received a lot of correspondence from my constituents disagreeing with these laws and I plan to advocate for them.”
David Mead provides a different perspective by focusing on the use of existing legislation rather than the introduction of new laws. He argues that the real issue lies in how current laws are applied. “I do not think Labour will repeal the protest legislation. The law is a very, very wide canvas,” he says, emphasising that the current legislation gives extensive powers to the police. “The question is not what is the legal scope, but how do they use the power, what decisions do they take and why? How can we do something about that? So it’s sort of police control and police accountability rather than legal framework change. So it’s how they use the powers that have been given in this legislation,” he says.
Robert Gordon, at the time of writing, still has not received his belongings from the police nor any paperwork regarding his arrest. On the future of protest he says, “I think we’ll continue to see more of the same. I’m just not convinced current tactics are achieving change necessarily and certainly not at the speed that we need them to. I think what we’ll see is a general decline in quality of life as we have seen more people in poverty, more inequality and all major revolutions start when people get hungry.
He continues, “maybe we won’t feel it in this country anytime soon but our system is set up to collapse and that’s quite scary so I think before we see the end of protests .We’ll see changes either bolster protests or make them no longer necessary. I think whatever happens, change is coming. It’s whether we get ahead of it and what kind of change comes.”