header-logo header-logo

23 June 2021
Issue: 7938 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Public
printer mail-detail

Support for right to noisy protests

A parliamentary committee has slammed government plans to curb non-violent protest as inconsistent with basic human rights
It warned the draft Bill could silence chanting and criminalise peaceful protest.

Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which deals with public order, creates an offence of ‘intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance’ (cl 59).

In its report published this week on the draft legislation, however, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said peaceful protests were, ‘by their nature liable to cause serious annoyance and inconvenience and criminalising such behaviour may dissuade individuals from participating’. It said existing laws already deal with public nuisance offences and the current drafting risks the new offence being broader than the common law offence it would replace.

Instead, the committee recommended ‘the introduction of express statutory protection for the right to protest, setting out the obligation on public authorities to refrain from interfering unlawfully with the right but also the duty to facilitate protest’.

The committee called for the complete removal of some clauses from the bill, including a trigger for imposing conditions based on noise. The committee said: ‘This  strikes at the very heart of why people gather together to protest―to have their voices heard.’

The committee said new powers to impose conditions on one-person protests in England and Wales should be dropped, and clauses that increase penalties for breaching conditions placed on protests should be removed.

Harriet Harman MP, chair of the committee, said: ‘The government proposals to allow police to restrict “noisy” protests are oppressive and wrong.

‘The government put forward new powers in areas where the police already have access to powers and offences which are perfectly adequate. Noisy protests are the exercises of the lungs of a healthy democracy.

‘We are calling for the right to protest peacefully to be given explicit statutory protection.’

Issue: 7938 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , 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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll