Government May Fight Human Rights Group And Defend Suella Braverman’s Anti-Protest Law in Court 

UPDATE 22nd July: Lawyers representing human rights group Liberty have agreed to adjourn the court hearing against the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, challenging the anti-protest legislation covered below, ahead of talks to find a resolution.

Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty said in a statement: “We are glad the new Government are taking a moment to reconsider, as this case has immense implications for our democracy and the potential unchecked power of ministers.

“The choice now facing the new Home Secretary is simple, do you want to continue the legacy of the past Government with their rule-breaking and disrespect, or will you put into action your Attorney General’s words and stop the abuse of secondary legislation?

“We hope [this] marks a new era of Government, respect for our democracy and we see this case dropped.”

A Government spokesperson confirmed to Byline Times that the new Home Secretary was assessing the evidence and the merits of the case.

The Labour Government could defend a controversial anti-protest law brought in by former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman in court next week. 

Government officials are currently deciding whether to continue with an appeal initiated by new Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s Conservative predecessors, against a landmark ruling that found anti-protest legislation unlawful.

A decision has not been made yet, but short of a last minute u-turn, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is set to face off against human rights group Liberty in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday and Wednesday. 

Liberty will argue that the former Government’s use of so-called Henry VIII powers – secondary legislation – to clamp down on protests that are deemed to cause “more than minor” disruption was unconstitutional, and in breach of people’s right to peacefully protest. 

The powers were initially thrown out by the House of Lords when proposed as part of the Public Order Bill in 2023. But they were later imposed through so-called Henry VIII powers, or secondary legislation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny and the need for a proper vote. 

This May, the High Court ruled that right-wing former Home Secretary Braverman had acted unlawfully in introducing the legislation. It found she had overstepped her authority by fundamentally altering the meaning of “serious disruption”, rather than merely clarifying it, by using what are effectively executive powers to change laws.   

The Conservative Government immediately announced its intention to appeal against Liberty’s court win. A day later, then-PM Rishi Sunak called the snap General Election. But Braverman’s legal cogs kept turning behind the scenes.

Now, in a move that will surprise some observers, the new Labour Government under Home Secretary Yvette Cooper may be pressing ahead with the appeal. In other words, fighting Liberty’s court win.  

Labour was largely silent on protest rights during the recent general election campaign, with no mention in the party’s manfiesto. 

Any failure to drop the legal case may fuel speculation that the new Government is trying to avoid a potential backlash from right-wing media, via suggestions the new administration is ‘soft’ on disruptive protests.

Katy Watts, the lead lawyer for Liberty’s legal challenge, had expressed hope that the new Government might withdraw the appeal. 

“We were encouraged by the words of the new Attorney General on Monday when he said that [the new Government] is committed to ensuring that secondary legislation is not abused,” Watts told Byline Times. “This case completely sums up the potential of secondary legislation to be abused.”

The controversy surrounding the case bolsters the ongoing debate over the use of so-called Henry VIII powers, which allow ministers to amend primary legislation without a full parliamentary debate or vote.

“This is the first time a Government has done something by secondary legislation that it had failed to do by primary legislation,” Watts explained. “The Government couldn’t get it through Parliament, so simply went ahead and did it by the back door.”

Just Stop Oil Protestors Receive Harshest Jail Terms Yet in Case that ‘May Violate Human Rights Law’

The trial and sentencing of the protesters has been described as a “low point in British justice” and an “assault on free speech”

Stuart Spray

The case has broader implications for democratic processes and the balance of power between the executive and legislature. Critics argue that the use of secondary legislation in this way undermines parliamentary sovereignty and reduces democratic accountability.

It comes amid growing concerns about the erosion of protest rights in the UK. This Thursday’s sentencing of five Just Stop Oil activists to four-five years in prison for conspiracy to cause public nuisance has highlighted the sweeping nature of recent anti-protest laws passed under the Conservatives. 

They include new offences created by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act against so-called ‘locking on’ to objects or people, and tough punishments for people impeding traffic. 

“We’re extremely concerned about the expansion of police powers and the creation of new criminal offences over the last few years,” Watts said. “We’re seeing people being incarcerated for four years for being on a Zoom call and planning non-violent direct action.”

Liberty also argues that the crime of causing a “public nuisance”, with its maximum sentence of 10 years, is overly broad and vague, leading to its use against protesters in ways that threaten freedom of expression and assembly.

The case also raises questions about the new Labour Government’s approach to civil liberties and protest rights. Many supporters had hoped for a shift away from the more authoritarian policies of the previous Conservative administration.

“One of the priorities for the new Government should be looking at that anti-protest legislation and the extent to which it interferes with people’s rights to protest, and thinking about what could be repealed,” Watts said. 

The case could be a litmus test of the new Government’s approach to peaceful protest. 

Another Government defeat in the Court of Appeal would effectively restrict the new Government’s scope in introducing major policy changes through the back-door, i.e secondary legislation. 

Civil liberties groups will be watching closely.

A Home Office spokesperson suggested an update on the Government’s decision on the case is forthcoming. 

The hearing is scheduled for 23-24 July 2024 at the Royal Courts of Justice and will be available via live stream by advanced request.

Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH

Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.

So for more from him…

Subscribe to Byline Times