Starmer Just Got Beaten In Court Defending Tory Policy!

Right, so our right to protest, enshrined in the Human Rights Act, has been under significant attack ever since Suella Braverman rammed through secondary legislation to the Public Order Act, following parliamentary defeat, using so called Henry VIII powers to hand the police powers to deal with protesters deemed to have breached said Public Order Act by doing something serious enough to be deemed more than minor. That is literally the wording of what she sneaked into law and we’ve seen the effect on protest since, with arbitrary arrests conducted during protests, that can be attributed to pretty much anything the police on seen decide fits that vague and grossly open to interpretation wording.
The opposition Labour Party of Keir Starmer opposed all of this at the time, as you can imagine, opposing the Tories was the most politically expedient thing to do at the time, but following the Tory government being taken to the High Court last year and being defeated, the appeal, because of course the Tories appealed it, hadn’t been heard before they lost power to Starmer’s Labour. But by this time Starmer had decided it suited him to keep it now, so he went ahead with the appeal. Starmer’s Labour going to court to follow up an appeal to save Tory legislation, that the Tories had instigated. Two faced Starmer, Two Tier Keir, whatever your chosen phrase it fits. Well just like the blue Tories, Starmer’s Red Tories lost too and they deserve every bit of the political damage they’ve earned from it too.
Right, so the UK Court of Appeal has upheld a previous High Court ruling that declared the government's expansion of police powers to restrict protests was unlawful. That’s five judges across two cases that have all agreed it’s not fit for purpose. This judgment not only reaffirms our fundamental right to peaceful assembly but also highlights the dangers of governmental overreach, as both the Tories of Rishi Sunak and what passes for Labour under Keir Starmer have had their backsides handed to them over the same thing and the importance of judicial oversight in preserving our democratic freedoms. We’ve got a win against this lot finally.
It was back in 2023, that then Home Secretary Suella Braverman sought to amend the Public Order Act by redefining "serious disruption" to include actions causing "more than minor" inconvenience. This change significantly lowered the threshold for police intervention in protests, granting law enforcement broader discretion to impose conditions on demonstrations. Notably, Braverman introduced this amendment through secondary legislation, having failed to get passed conventionally through parliament some 6 months prior, bypassing the more comprehensive scrutiny of primary legislation. This manoeuvre, often referred to as using "Henry VIII powers," because its very much a what I want to do I will do kind of tyrannical nonsense, allows ministers to modify existing laws without full parliamentary approval—and every time this was done, the Tories developed a biit of a habit for it, it was criticised as a constitutional outrage by legal experts and civil rights groups and rightly so in my view.
But Braverman’s introduction of these expanded powers faced immediate backlash from civil liberties organisations, opposition parties such as Starmer’s Labour at that time, and the public of course and all the more so as the effects of these police powers and the abuse that followed became more than clear.
Therefore, it was the human rights group Liberty that spearheaded a legal challenge, with the Public Law Project acting as interveners, arguing that the government's actions were an overreach, were too open to interpretation, undermined the democratic process and even more so, our human rights to protest. In May 2024, the High Court ruled in favour of Liberty, stating that the government had exceeded its authority by implementing such significant changes without proper legislative procedure and had increased the risk of protesters being judged to have acted criminally. They also found that the government was aware that this was likely to increase the number of conditions imposed by the police by up to 50% and that prosecutions would increase by around one-third. All for protesting, which we all have a right to. The big bone of contention was that correlation between the wording of protesters being found to be doing something more than minor during a protest and the word the word serious in connection with whatever they’d done – the word serious is a big jump from more than minor, its very ill-defined impossible to standardise, but for someone who wanted protest shut down basically, par for the course for someone as outspokenly hard right as Suella Braverman.
Despite that ruling though, the government, then still under Conservative leadership, appealed that decision. Following the general election though, the Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer, assumed power before said appeal was heard. Surely having opposed this legislation previously the appeal would be binned therefore? Of course not, this is Keir Starmer, when is his word or opinion worth anything? Oh look, I quite like this legislation, especially when it comes to anti genocide protests, pro Gaza protests, so instead of withdrawing the appeal, the new government, the new Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, chose to continue defending the contested legislation, carried on with the appeal completely contradicting themselves.
Braverman brings in appalling legislation, Labour then opposed it. The Tories took it to court and lost their case. The Tories appeal, Labour cone into power. Labour decide to keep the powers and carry on with the appeal, now literally going to court to defend Tory legislation that had already been defeated once in court. Labour hate being called Red Tories, but those boots do fit them oh so well.
Therefore, whilst the media was preoccupied with analysing the local election results of the night before, it was quietly sneaked out that the Court of Appeal had dismissed the Starmer government's appeal, reinforcing the High Court's decision. The judges re-emphasised that the term "serious disruption" inherently implies a high threshold and cannot be reasonably interpreted to mean anything "more than minor."
Adhering to proper legislative process is important, going through the right channels is crucial, otherwise governments suffer embarrassing defeats in parliament, but this is especially embarrassing for Starmer and Co, because this wasn’t even their legislation they were defending, they simply chose to hoist themselves by Suella Braverman’s petard.
There must be oversight, the judiciary provide that if necessary and they’ve done the job again here. Braverman’s police anti protest powers are unlawful, now get over it.
The unlawful expansion of police powers had tangible consequences and we’ve seen it over and over again during the last two years. Numerous peaceful protesters were arrested under the new regulations. Among them was Chris Nineham, the prominent anti-war activist, who was detained during a peaceful demonstration in London at a wreath laying in memory of dead Gazan children. Another particularly egregious example was the police summoning to answer questions in relation to a protest he had been part of, of Stephen Kapos, an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor, all for participating in an anti-genocide march supporting Gaza. The optics of that, especially with Israel constantly comparing the Hamas attack of October 7th to the Holocaust. These incidents highlight the scope for misuse of vaguely defined laws, as the High Court very much pointed out and the chilling effect they can have on free expression and assembly, which of course was the idea.
Liberty's persistent efforts have been instrumental in challenging and overturning this chronic legislation. Following the Court of Appeal's decision, Liberty's director, Akiko Hart, stated:
‘Today’s judgment is clear, just as it was last year, that these laws should never have been made. They were a flagrant abuse of power from a Government determined to shut down protesters they did not personally agree with.
Five different judges over two separate hearings have now ruled that ‘serious’ simply cannot mean ‘more than minor’. It’s therefore even more surprising that the current Government chose to continue the appeal into this case and argue that wasn’t the case. As a result, even more people have been needlessly funnelled into the criminal system over the past twelve months through a law that should never have existed in the first place.
This ruling is a huge victory for democracy, and sets an important precedent that Government ministers must respect the law, and cannot simply step outside it to do whatever they want. The next step for the Government is simple – they must accept this ruling and agree to scrap this unlawful legislation once and for all.’
Shameem Ahmad, the CEO of the Public Law Project has also weighed in on this with a statement, having said that:
‘Public Law Project supported Liberty in the High Court and the Court of Appeal because this is a critical juncture for the UK’s democracy.
The former Home Secretary used statutory instruments to significantly restrict protest rights without scrutiny, despite these amendments being previously voted down by Parliament. The High Court agreed with us that this was an excessive and unlawful use of executive power.
“When the current Government decided to appeal that decision, they missed a valuable opportunity to defend civil liberties, restore proper balance between the executive power and Parliament and commit to making laws the right way.
The Court of Appeal has now agreed with Liberty and PLP.
PLP believes the public deserves better than backdoor law-making that allows their fundamental rights to be diminished by ministerial decree. The public deserves assurance that legislation impacting their daily lives has undergone Parliamentary debate and thorough scrutiny.
We trust that this decisive victory for the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty will serve as a watershed moment for the Government. These restrictive protest laws should now be permanently abandoned and Henry VIII powers relegated to the annals of history where they belong.’
Liberty and the PLP are right, Starmer’s bunch must immediately scrap this unlawful law and initiate a comprehensive review of all protest-related legislation passed in recent years. We must also see the reversal of wrongful arrests and a renewed commitment to safeguarding democratic freedoms in relation to protests, which for Starmer’s lot, who seem more intent on locking up protesters than for pretty much any other crime, this is especially bad news for them. Henry VIII powers, as undemocratic as they are, must be binned off to history as well just like the tyrant king they’re named for.
The Court of Appeal's ruling serves as a critical reminder of the importance of checks and balances in a democratic society and that this applies to government as much those they govern over, nobody being above the law and all of that. Governmental actions must align with legal frameworks and respect fundamental rights otherwise we risk seeing further erosion of them and seeing Reform UK do so well in the local elections and knowing Farage would love to scrap the Human Rights Act, protecting all manner of rights we take too often for granted, the warnings are there, yet for too many they aren’t taking any notice. As the UK moves forward, it is imperative for lawmakers to ensure that any measures affecting civil liberties undergo thorough scrutiny and public consultation, as well as the correct route through parliament. The preservation of the right to protest is not just a legal obligation but a cornerstone of a vibrant and functioning democracy and any legislation attacking that or any of our other rights, needs to end up in court each and every time to be fought back against. We got a win here, but you might not have even heard much about it thanks to our media.
The unlawful expansion of police powers to restrict protests represented a significant threat to civil liberties in the UK. The successful legal challenges mounted by Liberty and the subsequent rulings by the High Court and Court of Appeal show that this is still a nation committed to democratic principles and the rule of law, even if our governments seem increasingly uninterested in doing so. It is now incumbent upon Starmer’s government to respect these decisions, rectify past injustices, and ensure that the right to peaceful protest remains protected for all of us, its very difficult to have faith in Starmer ever doing the right thing, when he never acknowledges he ever gets anything wrong.
It is that determination that he’s always right and we are always wrong that largely contributed to his local election drubbing of course and his response to being told we don’t like what you’re doing? To go even further, even faster. No wonder Labour have recorded their worst set of local election results since records began. Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch, Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as supporting the channel at the very same time which is much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.