Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on ‘what the papers don’t say’ – without fear or favour.
To support its work, subscribe to the monthly Byline Times print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, news, and analysis.
A proposal to make some protest groups pay towards policing costs in London has faced strong criticism during a London Assembly hearing, with experts labelling it “unlawful” and “completely unworkable”.
The idea was put forward by John Woodcock – who is also known as Lord Walney – the Government’s ‘independent adviser’ on political violence and disruption.
The former Labour MP – and now a crossbench peer appointed to an adviser role by Rishi Sunak’s Government – suggested the idea as a solution to the strain on police resources caused by frequent large-scale demonstrations, singling out pro-Palestine protests, which have been happening almost fortnightly since Hamas’ 7 October 2003 attack on Israel and its subsequent war on Gaza.

Legal experts and assembly members raised serious concerns about the practicality and legality of the proposal, warning it could infringe on fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
Kirsty Brimelow KC, a renowned protest lawyer and Barrister for Doughty Street Chambers, told the London Assembly’s policing committee on Wednesday: “I cannot see how a proposal for protesters to pay is lawful. It shows a real misunderstanding of Articles 10 and 11 [of the Human Rights Act].”
It ignores that there’s a positive right to protest that the state must facilitate. The proposal completely misunderstands that. It’s unlawful, it wouldn’t get off the ground, and practically, it’s completely unworkable
Kirsty Brimelow, KC
Tellingly, sitting next to Lord Walney, policing expert Matt Parr – the former chief Inspector for HM’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services – agreed that the ‘pay to protest idea’, currently being reviewed by the Government, was “completely unworkable”.
“I simply cannot see how that could be made to work, even if there was a legal framework that supported it. It would allow the police to say, effectively, ‘we’re a bit busy this month. We can’t have this protest….It’s costing too much this month already.
“I’m afraid that would enable police to set the bar too low, and effectively, they would always be able to find an excuse to not [allow] it.”
Parr pointed out that the Met Police has the ability to apply for special grants for managing public order issues like mass protests, but agreed that “ultimately, the taxpayer is paying from a limited pot”.
However, he added: “I don’t think the way to reset the balance is to use…effective banning orders, or payment orders that you’re recommending. I just can’t see how it works.”
Lord Walney defended his suggestion, arguing it would only apply to large organisations choosing to stage repeated mass demonstrations, not one-off protests.
“If an organisation chooses that particular method [of protest], week after week after week, you can see the strain which it is putting on other policing areas,” Lord Walney told the hearing.
He highlighted that policing protests related to the Middle East conflict over the past 12 months had cost around £43 million and required 52,000 police officer shifts.
But, even those sympathetic to the challenges faced by the police expressed scepticism about the proposal’s viability.
Labour Assembly Member Unmesh Desai raised concerns about the practical implementation of such a policy, questioning what would happen if organisations either couldn’t or refused to pay, noting: “Laws become discredited when they can’t be implemented.”
Facing a wave of criticism, Walney conceded, “This is not a straightforward proposal, I’ll grant you”, before suggesting an alternative could be to allow police to factor in resource costs when deciding on whether to allow protests to proceed.
This idea also faced criticism, including from Parr.
Throughout the hearing, participants emphasised the importance of protecting the right to protest in a democratic society.
Brimelow reminded the panel: “It’s important not to focus on…the irritations of protest…but to look at it in the context that this is the lifeblood of a democracy.”
Green Assembly Member Zoe Garbett echoed the sentiment, adding: “People are choosing to protest because other routes have failed. For example, when 75% of people were saying that they wanted a ceasefire [in Gaza]…and our Government wasn’t [acting on] that, people chose to protest.”
Lord Walney said his pre-election review of protest rights, which first raised the ‘pay to protest’ idea, was being considered by the new Labour Government. He also suggested increasing penalties for unauthorised demonstrations.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
The hearing came in the context of confusion over whether the Government adviser remained in post. On Tuesday, this outlet reported on official briefings suggesting that he no longer had the domestic extremism role.
The Home Office later issued a statement claiming he was still in post, but The Times followed up with a report stating his role was “under review”.