Ministers should think again after judges ruled the authoritarian move to constrain demonstrations was unlawful

Judges in the high court have found that the former home secretary Suella Braverman acted unlawfully in making it easier for the police to criminalise peaceful protest. That is a very good thing for society and democracy. The rights of non-violent assembly are among our fundamental freedoms, providing a touchstone to distinguish between a free society and a totalitarian one. Liberty, the civil rights campaigners who took the government to court, ought to be congratulated for standing up for all our rights. At the heart of this case was whether a minister could, without primary legislation, decide what words meant in law. The court, thankfully, thought that such matters were best left to the dictionary.

During protests by environmental groups in the summer of 2023, Ms Braverman had decided to rule by diktat. Consulting only the police, and not the protesters who would have been affected, she used so-called Henry VIII powers that the government had conferred upon itself a year earlier. These allowed her to lower the threshold at which the police would intervene to impose conditions on public protest, defining “serious disruption” as anything “more than minor”. There’s an ocean of difference between the two. But Ms Braverman was unconcerned that she was shamefully pursuing a nakedly authoritarian move to constrain the right of peaceful protest by stripping words of their meaning.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.