High Court slaps down 'unlawful' move to extend police powers around protests

Regulations which lowered the threshold for police intervening in protests were unlawful, the High Court has ruled.

Civil liberties group Liberty brought legal action against the Home Office over protest regulations passed by statutory instrument last year.

The Government measures lowered the threshold for what is considered "serious disruption" to community life, from "significant" and "prolonged" to "more than minor".

They also allowed police officers to take into account "any relevant cumulative disruption" of repeated protests.

The regulations came after the Government tried to introduce the same changes when the Public Order Bill went through Parliament, but they were rejected by the Lords at the time by 254 votes to 240.

The step to restore the provisions by statutory instrument, which faces less scrutiny than primary legislation, was criticised at the time but passed last year.

At a hearing in February, lawyers for Liberty asked the High Court to quash the "unlawful" provision.

And in a ruling on Tuesday, two judges ruled for the group, finding the Home Office acted outside of its powers by reducing the threshold and failed to carry out a fair consultation process.

Lord Justice Green and Mr Justice Kerr said: "As a matter of ordinary and natural language 'more than minor' is not within the scope of the word 'serious'."

During the hearing in February, lawyers for Liberty said the decision to make the regulations - which lower the threshold for intervention by the police - "was vitiated by a one-sided, unfair consultation which preceded it" which included a "narrow group of stakeholders".

Finding the regulations to be unlawful due to an unfair consultation as well as being beyond the powers of the Home Office, Lord Justice Green and Mr Justice Kerr said: "A public body or decision-maker owes no general duty in all cases to consult interested persons before deciding upon a measure.

"But the decision-maker may become subject to such a duty in certain circumstances."

The judges continued: "The purpose of consulting goes beyond merely informing the reasoning in support of the eventual decision.