Public Order And Protest Policing
1. Introduction to Public Order and Protest Policing
In the UK, public order policing aims to balance the right to protest (protected under Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights - freedom of expression and assembly) with the need to maintain peace, prevent disorder, and protect the rights of others.
The primary legal frameworks governing public order and protest policing include:
Public Order Act 1986
Common law powers related to breach of the peace
Police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
Human rights legislation, especially ECHR Articles 10 and 11
Key principles in protest policing:
Protests must be policed with respect to proportionality.
Police must not unduly infringe on rights to peaceful assembly.
Where necessary, police can impose conditions (time, place, manner) on protests.
Use of force or arrests must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
2. Legal Framework for Policing Protests
Public Order Act 1986
Defines offences like violent disorder, affray, riot, violent protest, and gives police powers to impose conditions on processions and assemblies.
Police must give notice and reasons for imposing conditions.
Sections 12, 13, 14 of the Act allow conditions to be placed on protests to prevent serious public disorder, damage, or disruption.
Common Law Powers
Police have power to prevent a breach of the peace, which is broadly defined as a threat to public order and safety.
This power allows intervention even before a crime occurs to prevent disorder.
3. Detailed Case Law
Case 1: R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55
Facts:
Police stopped and turned back a coach of protesters en route to a demonstration at RAF Fairford against the Iraq war.
The police argued they were acting to prevent serious public disorder at the protest.
Legal Issue:
Was the police action lawful and proportionate under public order law and ECHR rights?
Outcome:
The House of Lords held that the police action was unlawful.
The prevention was not based on a real and imminent threat of violence.
It was disproportionate and an unjustified restriction on the protesters' right to assemble.
Significance:
Police cannot preemptively restrict peaceful protesters without a genuine risk of disorder.
Established the importance of proportionality and the need for a real risk before intervening.
Case 2: DPP v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240
Facts:
Protesters occupied a road, blocking it to demonstrate against a road building plan.
Police arrested them for obstruction of the highway.
Legal Issue:
Could the protesters lawfully demonstrate on the highway?
Outcome:
The House of Lords held that peaceful assembly on a highway is lawful if it does not unreasonably obstruct the highway.
Protesters have a right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully.
Significance:
Affirmed that public highways are traditional venues for lawful protests.
The right to peaceful assembly is protected unless it causes unreasonable obstruction.
Case 3: Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5
Facts:
During the 2001 G8 protests in London, police used “kettling” (containing protesters in a confined space).
Protesters argued this was an unlawful restriction on their rights.
Legal Issue:
Was kettling a lawful, proportionate tactic under human rights law?
Outcome:
The House of Lords held that kettling was lawful if proportionate and used as a last resort to prevent serious disorder.
Kettling was justified due to the dangerous circumstances and the need to protect public safety.
Significance:
Set guidelines for when and how kettling can be used.
Confirmed that restrictive tactics may be lawful but must be necessary and proportionate.
Case 4: R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 1232
Facts:
Police imposed conditions on a march regarding route and timing.
Protesters challenged the imposition of these conditions.
Legal Issue:
Did the police lawfully impose conditions under the Public Order Act 1986?
Outcome:
The Court of Appeal held that conditions can be imposed only if necessary to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage, serious disruption or serious intimidation.
Police decisions must be based on clear evidence and should be proportionate.
Significance:
Clarified the limits on police powers to impose conditions.
Reinforced the requirement for evidence-based, proportionate decision-making.
Case 5: R (Gillan and Quinton) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12
Facts:
Police stopped and searched protesters near the 2003 G8 summit under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 without suspicion.
Gillan and Quinton argued this was unlawful.
Legal Issue:
Was the use of stop and search powers without suspicion lawful and compatible with human rights?
Outcome:
The House of Lords ruled the powers were too broad and lacked safeguards, violating Article 8 (privacy).
The powers were disproportionate and unlawful.
Significance:
Highlighted the need for checks and balances on police powers during protests.
Impacted how police use stop and search in protest policing.
Case 6 (Bonus): R (McClure) v Crown Court at Manchester [2014] EWHC 247 (Admin)
Facts:
McClure was arrested during a protest for refusing to give his name and address.
He argued this was an unlawful arrest.
Legal Issue:
Did the police lawfully arrest under the Public Order Act powers?
Outcome:
The court held that arrest powers under the Act must be exercised lawfully, with reasonable grounds, and that refusal to provide information alone may not justify arrest unless other conditions are met.
Significance:
Reinforced limits on arrest powers during protests.
Emphasized that arrests should not be used to stifle peaceful protest.
4. Summary and Key Points
| Case | Year | Legal Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laporte v CC Gloucestershire | 2006 | Police cannot preemptively stop protesters without real threat | Emphasised proportionality & real risk |
| DPP v Jones | 1999 | Peaceful protest on highways lawful unless unreasonable obstruction | Affirmed rights to peaceful assembly |
| Austin v Met Police | 2009 | Kettling lawful if proportionate & last resort | Set limits on protest containment tactics |
| Roberts v Met Police | 2015 | Conditions on protests must be necessary & evidence-based | Clarified limits on police powers |
| Gillan and Quinton v Met Police | 2006 | Stop and search powers must respect privacy & be proportionate | Limited police intrusive powers |
| McClure v Crown Court | 2014 | Arrests during protests must be lawful and justified | Prevented misuse of arrest powers |
5. Conclusion
Protest policing in the UK operates within a delicate balance between upholding public order and respecting fundamental human rights. Case law consistently emphasizes that police powers must be:
Necessary and proportionate
Based on real risks of disorder
Subject to strict legal safeguards
Police must avoid unnecessarily restricting peaceful protests or infringing on rights without strong justification.
RELATED Blog
0 comments