Metropolitan Police Accused of Using Expired Powers to Restrict Pro-Palestine Protests
The Metropolitan Police have continued to impose restrictions on pro-Palestine demonstrations based on a legal framework that was overturned by the Court of Appeal in May, according to legal experts. Evidence obtained by The Guardian and Liberty Investigates reveals that officers have cited “cumulative disruption” as justification for limiting at least two protests, despite the regulations enabling them to do so being quashed months prior.
The controversy centers on the police’s interpretation of their authority to manage protests and the potential for overreach in suppressing dissent. While the Home Office and the Met maintain that officers can still consider the overall impact of repeated demonstrations, numerous legal professionals strongly disagree, asserting there is currently no legal basis for such restrictions.
Legal challenges and Expert Opinions
“This is a clear case of the police acting unlawfully,” explained Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer specializing in human rights and protest law. “The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever.”
Further evidence suggests a pattern of similar actions. In November, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to alter the route of its march with only three days’ notice, again citing the cumulative impact on businesses during the Black Friday retail weekend. Organizers noted the route hadn’t been used for over a year.
Concerns Over Accountability and Transparency
The revelations have sparked concerns about police accountability and the potential erosion of the right to protest. Kevin Blowe,campaigns coordinator for the Network for police Monitoring (Netpol),stated the situation represents an “alarming point” in the “ongoing crackdown on protest,” suggesting the Met may be operating without regard for the law. “The problem is zero police accountability and transparency in the use of their powers to restrict or limit protests,” Blowe added.
The issue extends beyond specific protest groups.Ben Jamal, director of the palestine Solidarity Campaign, recounted a conversation with Deputy Assistant Commissioner alison Heydari, who reportedly stated that a decision to impose conditions on a march – shifting the starting point by approximately half a mile – “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests.” According to Jamal, Heydari elaborated, stating the decision considered “a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community. Jamal emphasized that the Met’s repeated imposition of conditions has caused “immense disruption” and acted as a “demobiliser,” leading to confusion and harassment of protestors.
Government Response and future Legislation
The Home office defends the police’s actions, asserting that the discretion to consider cumulative disruption is implied within the Public Order Act 1986. They also announced in October plans to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in a more robust form through the Crime and Policing Bill currently progressing through Parliament.
Though, critics argue that the proposed legislation represents a further curtailment of protest rights. Nick Glynn, a retired senior police officer with over 30 years of experience in Leicestershire, voiced his opposition, stating, “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. If they are provided with them they not only use them [but] as in this case, they stretch them. They go beyond what was intended.” He added, “The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
In a statement, a Met spokesperson acknowledged the judicial review but maintained that senior officers can still consider the cumulative impact of protests on communities. They affirmed the Met’s commitment to using its powers lawfully while balancing the right to protest with the need to prevent serious disorder or disruption.
The ongoing dispute highlights a essential tension between maintaining public order and safeguarding the fundamental right to peaceful assembly, raising critical questions about the limits of police power and the future of protest in the United Kingdom.