header-logo header-logo

07 May 2025
Issue: 8115 / Categories: Legal News , Public
printer mail-detail

Court deals blow to Henry VIII powers

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll