Police Powers and Protester Rights: Understanding ‘Static’ Demonstrations

In a significant move, the British government has banned the annual Al-Quds Day march in London that has taken place for four decades, citing concerns related to the “ongoing conflict in the Middle East.”

The pro-Palestinian event, established following Iran’s 1979 revolution and organized by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, will not be permitted to proceed as a marching protest this year. However, organizers have indicated they will hold a “static” demonstration instead.

Metropolitan Police requested the ban, expressing concerns about potential confrontations between protesters and counter-protesters, as well as alleging that organizers were “supportive of the Iranian regime.” The Islamic Human Rights Commission has maintained that their planned protest was to be peaceful.

Static protests, which remain in one location rather than moving through streets, operate under different regulatory frameworks than marching demonstrations. Importantly, static protest organizers are not required to obtain prior police permission to gather.

However, police retain significant powers to regulate static protests under current legislation. If a senior officer determines that a static demonstration may lead to “serious public disorder, property damage, community disruption, excessive noise, or intimidation of the public,” they can impose various conditions on the gathering, according to Dr. James Greenwood-Reeves, a law lecturer at the University of Leeds.

The Conservative government substantially expanded police powers over protests with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of April 2022. This controversial legislation was criticized by civil liberties organizations, including the Good Law Project, which described it as “a serious threat to the right to protest.”

The government defended the measures, stating they were necessary because “certain tactics used by some protesters have caused a disproportionate impact on the hardworking majority seeking to go about their everyday lives.”

The 2022 Act grants officers expanded authority to place conditions on static demonstrations, including setting start and finish times, location restrictions, and maximum noise levels. It also broadened police stop-and-search capabilities, allowing searches of individuals “without reasonable suspicion in specific locations.”

Despite these expanded powers, police actions remain constrained by the Human Rights Act 1998. Dr. Greenwood-Reeves notes that authorities cannot “disproportionately interfere with protesters’ rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.” Police intervention must be justified by legitimate reasons such as crime prevention, national security protection, or safeguarding public rights.

Protesters themselves are protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, respectively. These protections extend to controversial causes, though they do not cover violent demonstrations or those intended to harass, frighten, or incite violence.

Demonstrations supporting prohibited organizations are also illegal under current law. For groups wishing to challenge protest restrictions, Professor David Mead of the University of East Anglia suggests that advance bans are actually easier to contest, as they provide time to “seek a court challenge by mounting a judicial review in the High Court.”

The Al-Quds Day situation highlights the ongoing tension between security concerns and free expression rights in the UK, particularly regarding politically sensitive issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict. As the static protest moves forward, both authorities and demonstrators will navigate these complex legal and social boundaries.