Government 'quietly drops' fight for tougher anti-protest laws used to arrest climate activist Greta Thunberg

17 June 2025, 06:18 | Updated: 17 June 2025, 16:41

LBC can reveal the government has backed down in its legal fight for tougher anti-protest laws, used to arrest hundreds of protesters including climate activist Greta Thunberg.

Changes implemented in 2023 by Conservative then-home secretary Suella Braverman allowed police to impose restrictions on protests deemed to cause “more than minor” disruption.

The wording of the law since 1986 had allowed officers to act only if disruption was determined to be “serious.”

Human rights organisation Liberty said the lowering of the threshold gave police “almost unlimited” power to restrict protests, and subsequently brought a legal challenge against the legislation.

Last month, the court of appeal upheld a high court ruling, which found Ms Braverman did not have the power to force through the change which redefined “serious disruption” as “more than minor” in the law concerning when police could impose limits on protests.

Despite initially backing the tougher definition, the government has now dropped its case against Liberty, meaning the law reverts to its previous wording, and protests once again need to cause "serious disruption” to warrant police enforcement.

Read more: Greta Thunberg speaks out after being 'interrogated' by Israeli authorities

Read more: Greta Thunberg deported from Israel after Gaza-bound 'Freedom Flotilla' seized

“The regulations introduced by Suella Braverman have been quashed or voided,” says Liberty lawyer Katy Watts. “So it's as if they never existed.”

Liberty has called the development a ‘step forward for the right to protest’, but others believe the Labour government should now use its majority to implement the changes through primary legislation - the route initially attempted by Ms Braverman, before being rejected by MPs.

She proceeded to force through the changes anyway using secondary legislation, which is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny.

“This was badly implemented by the last government. They didn't follow due process and they've been pulled up on it,” says Lord Walney, independent peer and former government adviser on political violence and disruption. "What is really important is that ministers make clear that they understand the value of the increased powers [and] that they commit to reinstating them.”

Liberty says the lower threshold for police enforcement resulted in hundreds of arrests and convictions of protesters, which they’re now calling on the government to urgently review.

The powers were used to arrest climate activist Greta Thunberg in 2023 for blocking the entrance of a London hotel where a major oil and gas industry conference was being held. She was charged with refusing to comply with a police order to leave a protest, and faced a fine of up to £2,500, but was acquitted by a judge last year.

How successful was Greta Thunberg’s aid mission?: LBC callers react

In another case which Liberty says highlights the extreme nature of the law, London mum Susan, whose name we've changed, was arrested in January after attending a Palestine demonstration on Whitehall.

“There was a huge police presence,” she told LBC. “Much heavier and more aggressive than at any march or event I’ve ever attended.”

She says she was trying to leave the area when an officer directed her into Trafalgar Square where she was “caught in a circle of police surrounding some protesters and tourists.” Despite trying to leave, she was arrested and held on a coach for nearly four hours, before being kept in a cell overnight.

“I was so scared for so long, crying, unable to sleep, hearing really distressing sounds from other cells… the thing that really broke me is knowing I did nothing wrong,” she says. “What happened was so unfair and shocking, I can’t compute how I’ll ever feel safe again.”

Professor David Mead, an expert on human rights and protest, tells LBC the court of appeal ruling means it’s now “easier” to protest than it was a few weeks ago: “Before, [officers] simply had to say, ‘do we think there is going to be more than minor disruption?’ If yes, we can impose conditions … And if anyone breaches those conditions, they have committed an offence.”

Now, he says the “question police have to ask is slightly different”, and if they don’t believe the protest will cause “significant delay, prolonged disruption,” then they can’t impose limitations.

He explains, though, that the changes won’t affect how actions like blocking roads or interfering with national infrastructure are policed: “Take the two [protesters] who threw tomato soup at the Van Gogh painting. [These laws would’ve been] no use at all. They were arrested for criminal damage… Most of the Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion slow marches have been for obstruction of the highway.”

Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, says the government’s decision to drop the case for stronger laws surrounding demonstrations is “a victory for protest rights.”

She says the combination of the lower threshold for police enforcement and “some of the harshest sentences in modern times around protest” had the potential to put people off joining demonstrations: “Certainly, I think that if you are a person of colour, if you are marginalised, I think you will feel more nervous, understandably, about joining a protest because of how they are being policed… because that space around protest has just become more narrow and more people have been criminalised.”

Professor Mead tells LBC he doesn’t believe the government should now try to implement the lower threshold again: “The powers that the police have are very wide already.”

He says Labour will now be “wrestling with how [to] not alienate its traditional liberally-minded base, while at the same time either appeal to, or not massively hack off, lots of people who get very cross at people going onto the streets and protesting.”

A Home Office spokesperson told LBC: “The court has ruled that specific regulations made by the previous government were unlawful, however the central powers currently used by policing to manage protests and ensure that they remain peaceful are not affected by this judgment.

"The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy but the law remains clear that it does not extend to intentional intimidation or serious disruption to the life of the community.

“We are already bringing forward new measures in legislation to prevent intimidatory protests outside places of worship. We will ensure that the police and the public have clarity on existing powers to manage protests that cause serious disruption, including where that disruption is cumulative, and undertake further work where required.”

Meanwhile, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: "The role of the police is to ensure people can exercise their right to peaceful protest, while also balancing the rights of those in the wider community to go about their lives without serious disruption.

"Preventing serious disruption and serious disorder is our legal responsibility and we will use our powers under the Public Order Act, including imposing conditions, in order to do so."