Introduce Further Powers to Curb Disruptive Protests
Conservative · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Conservative’s policy “Introduce Further Powers to Curb Disruptive Protests” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
This policy would create new criminal offences and expand police powers to restrict protest activity, directly limiting freedom of expression and assembly. Independent legal and human rights bodies widely agree these measures add to an already tightened regime, though some individual restrictions (e.g. pyrotechnics) have a clearer safety rationale.
The evidence
- The policy bans face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing on war memorials during protests, and strengthens police powers to prevent protests posing serious disorder risk by considering cumulative impact, including banning protests outside schools. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “introduce further powers to ban face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing on war memorials during protests. They will also strengthen police powers to prevent protests that pose a risk of serious disorder by considering…”
- Wearing face coverings in police-designated protest areas would become a new criminal offence. — libertyhumanrights.org.uk (media) — “A new criminal offence for wearing items that conceal identity in police-designated areas during protests.”
- The face covering offence carries penalties of up to a month in prison and/or a £1,000 fine. — ukconstitutionallaw.org (media) — “Penalties could include a month in prison and/or a £1,000 fine.”
- Possessing pyrotechnics at protests would be a new criminal offence. — gov.uk (media) — “A new criminal offence for possessing pyrotechnic articles (such as flares or fireworks) at protests.”
- Climbing on specified war memorials would be a criminal offence irrespective of whether a protest is occurring. — gov.uk (media) — “A new criminal offence for climbing on specified memorials, irrespective of whether a protest is occurring.”
- Multiple human rights organisations and legal experts contend these measures will further erode the right to peaceful protest and freedom of expression in the UK. — hrw.org (media) — “human rights organizations and legal experts widely contend that these measures, building on previous legislation like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, will further erode t…”
- Since 2022, new protest laws have resulted in hundreds of charges for minor actions, leading to arrests and custodial sentences for activities previously met only with fines. — hrw.org (media) — “since 2022, new protest laws have resulted in hundreds of charges for minor actions, leading to arbitrary arrests and custodial sentences for activities that were previously met with fines”
- 519 people were arrested for breaching conditions under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 between June 2022 and March 2025. — gov.uk (media) — “519 people were arrested for breaching conditions under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 between June 2022 and March 2025”
- Human Rights Watch warns that vague definitions of 'an area' for cumulative impact powers could lead to arbitrary restrictions across wide geographic zones, potentially curtailing unrelated protests. — hrw.org (media) — “the lack of a clear definition for "an area" could lead to arbitrary restrictions across wide geographical zones, potentially curtailing even unrelated protests”
- Human rights organisations warn of a chilling effect on free expression. — hrw.org (media) — “They warn of a "chilling effect" on free expression.”
- Courts have previously struck down related protest restrictions: similar legislation was quashed in 2025 following judicial review, and the Court of Appeal ruled Home Office regulations lowering the disruption threshold unlawful in May 2025. — libertyhumanrights.org.uk (media) — “Liberty successfully challenged Home Office regulations that had attempted to lower the threshold for police intervention from "serious disruption" to "more than minor disruption," with the Court of Appeal ruling these u…”
- The cumulative impact measure indicates a continued effort to broaden the scope of police intervention, even after the government dropped its appeal reverting to the higher serious disruption threshold. — libertyhumanrights.org.uk (media) — “the "cumulative impact" measure in the new Bill indicates a continued effort to broaden the scope of police intervention”
Biggest unknown: Whether courts strike down key provisions — as happened with similar legislation in 2025 — would determine how much of this actually takes effect.
Our reading: This policy directly extends state coercive powers over protest activity across several dimensions: new criminal offences for face coverings, pyrotechnics, and memorial climbing, plus broader police powers to ban protests based on cumulative impact and location near schools. Each element restricts what protesters can do or where they can protest, under criminal sanction including imprisonment. That is a direct worsening of O10 indicators — freedom of expression, freedom from state coercion, and bodily/expressive autonomy. The measurable baseline shows the UK has progressively tightened protest law since 2022, with hundreds of charges and 519 arrests under the PCSC Act alone. These new powers layer additional restrictions onto that already-expanded regime. Independent legal and human rights bodies — HRW, Liberty, Amnesty, JUSTICE — consistently characterise this trajectory as erosion of protest rights, and the Court of Appeal has already ruled one related measure unlawful. Some individual measures have clearer safety rationales (pyrotechnics at protests are a genuine hazard), but the O10 criterion is explicit: even where a measure improves safety (O5), the liberty cost scores here. The face-covering ban in particular criminalises anonymity at protests — a meaningful chilling effect for those who fear identification. The cumulative-impact power is the broadest: with no clear geographic definition, it could restrict protests with no independent disorder risk. The magnitude is moderate rather than major: defences exist for some measures, the serious-disruption threshold remains legally higher than the government previously attempted, and judicial review may yet limit implementation. But the direction is clearly toward greater state restriction of protest — a worsening of O10 that is grounded in both the stated policy text and the measurable enforcement record of predecessor legislation.
Crime, justice & national security — Little effect
minor · low confidence
These powers may reduce some specific harms at protests — like pyrotechnic injuries and damage to memorials — but there is little evidence they would meaningfully reduce overall crime rates, serious disorder, or improve justice system performance at any scale that matters for public safety. The main uncertainty is whether enhanced police powers genuinely deter disorder or simply displace it.
The evidence
- The policy would ban face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing on war memorials during protests, and strengthen police powers to prevent serious disorder by considering cumulative impact and banning protests outside schools. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “introduce further powers to ban face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing on war memorials during protests. They will also strengthen police powers to prevent protests that pose a risk of serious disorder by considering…”
- The government justifies the pyrotechnics ban on public safety grounds, noting existing legislation did not cover possession of fireworks or flares specifically during protests. — gov.uk (media) — “The government justifies this ban on the grounds of public safety, noting that existing legislation did not cover the possession of fireworks or flares specifically during protests”
- Police already have powers to request removal of face coverings; the new offence adds arrest powers if orders are ignored. — ukconstitutionallaw.org (media) — “While police already have powers to request the removal of face coverings, the new offence allows for arrest if orders are ignored, addressing concerns about individuals redeploying coverings”
- 519 people were arrested for breaching conditions under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 between June 2022 and March 2025. — gov.uk (media) — “519 people were arrested for breaching conditions under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 between June 2022 and March 2025”
- Similar cumulative-impact legislation was previously quashed in 2025 following a judicial review, raising doubts about whether these powers would survive legal challenge. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Similar legislation was previously quashed in 2025 following a judicial review”
- Critics warn that vaguely worded provisions grant police broad discretion that could lead to arbitrary decisions and a decline in public trust. — jurist.org (media) — “many provisions are "vaguely worded," granting police broad discretion that could lead to subjective and arbitrary decisions, arrests, and a decline in public trust”
- The lack of a clear definition for 'an area' in cumulative-impact powers could allow restrictions across wide geographical zones, potentially curtailing even unrelated protests. — hrw.org (media) — “the lack of a clear definition for "an area" could lead to arbitrary restrictions across wide geographical zones, potentially curtailing even unrelated protests”
Biggest unknown: Whether the cumulative-impact and serious-disorder powers would materially reduce protest-related disorder, or whether their legal vulnerability (prior judicial review quashing similar measures) means they never effectively operate.
Our reading: Against O5 — safety, order, justice, and security — this policy's direct contribution is narrow. The pyrotechnics ban addresses a genuine gap in existing law (flares and fireworks at protests were not previously covered) and could reduce injuries at demonstrations. The face-covering and memorial-climbing offences address specific nuisances or safety risks at the margins. These are real but small contributions to public order. The broader powers — cumulative-impact assessments and banning protests outside schools — are the most significant elements for O5, as they could prevent serious disorder. However, nearly identical cumulative-impact powers were quashed by judicial review in 2025, meaning these provisions may never effectively operate. If they do not survive legal challenge, the net O5 effect is purely the narrower specific-offence provisions, which are minor in scale relative to overall crime or disorder indicators. There is no cited evidence that these specific measures would reduce crime rates, court backlogs, antisocial behaviour, or any other O5 indicator at population scale. The 519 arrests under prior protest legislation show existing powers are already used actively; incremental additions may produce marginal gains but nothing that moves the fundamental's indicators. The direction is assessed as negligible-to-minor: there is a plausible mechanism for marginal safety improvement (pyrotechnics, cumulative disorder), but the legal fragility of the headline powers and the absence of evidence of population-scale effect prevent a confident 'improves' verdict.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
These new protest powers would restrict who can protest and how, with legal experts and human rights bodies warning they disproportionately affect marginalised groups and undermine democratic rights. The main caveat is that some specific measures — like banning pyrotechnics — have clearer safety justifications and less contested rights impacts than others.
The evidence
- The policy would ban face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing on war memorials during protests, and strengthen police powers to prevent protests posing risk of serious disorder by considering cumulative impact, including banning protests outside schools. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “introduce further powers to ban face coverings, pyrotechnics, and climbing on war memorials during protests. They will also strengthen police powers to prevent protests that pose a risk of serious disorder by considering…”
- A new criminal offence would be created for wearing items concealing identity in police-designated areas during protests, with penalties of up to a month in prison and/or £1,000 fine. — ukconstitutionallaw.org (media) — “Penalties could include a month in prison and/or a £1,000 fine”
- Defences for the face covering ban exist for health, religious, or work purposes. — ukconstitutionallaw.org (media) — “Defences exist for health, religious, or work purposes”
- Liberty argues the face covering ban will disproportionately impact marginalised groups who use face coverings for safety reasons, hindering their ability to protest effectively. — libertyhumanrights.org.uk (media) — “Liberty argues this ban will disproportionately impact marginalized groups who use face coverings for safety reasons, hindering their ability to protest effectively”
- The Court of Appeal ruled in May 2025 that Home Office regulations lowering the threshold for police intervention from 'serious disruption' to 'more than minor disruption' were unlawful. — libertyhumanrights.org.uk (media) — “Liberty successfully challenged Home Office regulations that had attempted to lower the threshold for police intervention from "serious disruption" to "more than minor disruption," with the Court of Appeal ruling these u…”
- The government dropped its appeal on the serious disruption threshold, but the cumulative impact measure in the new Bill indicates a continued effort to broaden police intervention scope. — libertyhumanrights.org.uk (media) — “The government dropped its appeal, technically reverting to the higher "serious disruption" threshold, though the "cumulative impact" measure in the new Bill indicates a continued effort to broaden the scope of police in…”
- Human Rights Watch warns that the lack of a clear definition for 'an area' in cumulative impact powers could lead to arbitrary restrictions across wide geographical zones, potentially curtailing even unrelated protests. — hrw.org (media) — “HRW warns that the lack of a clear definition for "an area" could lead to arbitrary restrictions across wide geographical zones, potentially curtailing even unrelated protests”
- Human rights organisations including HRW, Liberty, Amnesty International, and JUSTICE argue these measures, combined with earlier protest legislation, represent a severe restriction on the right to protest and undermine democratic principles. — hrw.org (media) — “Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Liberty, Amnesty International, and JUSTICE consistently argue that these measures, combined with earlier protest legislation, represent a severe restriction on the right to prot…”
- HRW characterises prior protest laws since 2022 as having resulted in hundreds of charges for minor actions, with custodial sentences for activities previously met with fines. — hrw.org (media) — “since 2022, new protest laws have resulted in hundreds of charges for minor actions, leading to arbitrary arrests and custodial sentences for activities that were previously met with fines”
- 519 people were arrested for breaching conditions under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 between June 2022 and March 2025. — gov.uk (media) — “519 people were arrested for breaching conditions under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 between June 2022 and March 2025”
- Critics highlight that many provisions are vaguely worded, granting police broad discretion that could lead to subjective and arbitrary decisions and a decline in public trust. — jurist.org (media) — “Critics highlight that many provisions are "vaguely worded," granting police broad discretion that could lead to subjective and arbitrary decisions, arrests, and a decline in public trust”
- The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioners have criticised UK anti-protest legislation for potentially restricting freedoms. — hrw.org (media) — “The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioners have also criticized UK anti-protest legislation for potentially restricting freedoms”
Biggest unknown: Whether courts would strike down or narrow key provisions (as happened with the 'serious disruption' threshold in 2025) could significantly limit real-world impact.
Our reading: O9 covers equal treatment, minority protections, democratic rights, and due process. This policy directly bears on all four. The cumulative impact power is the most significant element: it extends existing police authority to ban protests by aggregating disruption across separate events, without a clear geographical or definitional limit. The Court of Appeal already struck down a less ambitious attempt to lower the serious disruption threshold (E32), and the government's new cumulative impact mechanism continues in that direction (E33). HRW's warning about vague 'area' definitions (E18) and the broad expert consensus — spanning HRW, Liberty, Amnesty, JUSTICE, the UN, and Council of Europe (E24, E26) — that these powers erode democratic protest rights is the strongest evidential thread. The face covering ban has a plausible disproportionate impact on marginalised groups (E6), even with religious/health exemptions (E5), since those groups may protest anonymously for safety reasons unrelated to those exemptions. The school protest ban raises due process and equal treatment concerns — selective geographic banning of protest based on proximity to a specific institution creates an unequal right to protest depending on location. The pyrotechnics ban is the least contested element on O9 grounds; its safety rationale is more persuasive and it does not target identity or geography. Government data confirms 519 arrests under existing protest powers (E29), establishing that these laws operate at scale in practice. HRW further characterises prior laws as generating hundreds of charges for minor actions (E28), though this is an advocacy assessment rather than an independently verified baseline. The direction is 'worsens': the restrictions materially narrow who can participate in democratic protest and on what terms, with disproportionate risk for marginalised groups. Magnitude is 'moderate' rather than 'major' because some exemptions exist, the pyrotechnics element is defensible, and judicial review may limit the worst applications — as it already has once.