Policing protests

When the right to protest clashes with the freedom of people to go about their lawful business, which wins? The law is framed to allow both to happen. It is not lawful to cause so much disruption that normal day-to-day activity cannot continue, however strongly people might feel about the cause they espouse.

Blocking the highway, stopping public transport and deliberately over-stretching the resources of the police, thereby putting the public at risk, are wrong. The activists of Extinction Rebellion think they are entitled to cause as much inconvenience as possible because they are convinced of their rectitude. When their activity in London last month began to interfere seriously with the functioning of the capital the police were overwhelmed. Under pressure to do something, they invoked powers contained in Section 14 of the Public Order Act to ban the protests. Yesterday, the High Court ruled that this was unlawful because the separate gatherings affected “were not a public assembly within the meaning of the Act”.

If the police misused the powers then the court was right to quash the order. However, the judges noted that the police do have powers to “control future protests which are deliberately designed to ‘take police resources to breaking point’ ”.

Moreover, there are laws that need to be upheld, prohibiting sitting in the road to block traffic, pitching tents in Whitehall and climbing on to trains. Extinction Rebellion campaigners welcomed the High Court’s ruling because it demonstrated that the rule of law exists in the UK to defend people’s rights. In that case, let them protest within the law – or do they consider themselves to be above it?