Policing of protests

This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.

Third Report of Session 2023–24

Author: Home Affairs Committee

Related inquiry: Policing of protests

Date Published: 27 February 2024

Download and Share

Contents

1 Introduction

1. Protests across the UK continue to present ongoing challenges for police forces. The Public Order Act 2023 aimed to address some of these challenges, by seeking to strengthen police powers to tackle disruptive and potentially dangerous tactics such as those used by Just Stop Oil. Yet, further issues have arisen from different protests, such as the recent large-scale and successive nature of recent Israel-Gaza protests, causing severe resource constraints for police forces.

2. We initially launched a short inquiry into the policing of protests on 17 May 2023, following arrests made around the King’s Coronation on 6 May 2023, to ascertain how new powers under the Public Order Act 2023 were used. We took evidence from the police, people who were arrested, and legal experts about how events unfolded as they did that day, and why it led to a number arrests.1

3. Towards the end of 2023, following a succession of large frequent protests relating to the ongoing conflict in Israel and Gaza, we re-opened the inquiry due to the differing challenges these protests have had on policing, particularly surrounding how effectively the police have managed to control large successive protests.2 This has been reinforced due to recent protests occurring outside the homes of elected representatives. We heard from members of a coalition of protest organisers, representatives from Jewish communities, the police, and reviewers of relevant legislation.3 We also visited the Metropolitan Police’s (the Met) Specialist Operations Room to see for ourselves how the police are monitoring such protests.

2 Legislation governing protests

Types of protests and requirements for protest organisers

4. Part II of the Public Order Act 1986 specifies three types of protest:

  • Public assemblies: a gathering of “two or more people that is wholly or partly open to the air”, typically referred to as a static protest.
  • Public processions: a “procession in a public place”, which typically includes protest marches intended to demonstrate support or opposition for a particular view, publicise a campaign or commemorate an event.
  • One-person protests: protests carried out by a single individual in a public place.4

5. Section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 requires those organising a protest march to notify the police at least six days in advance, unless it is not reasonably practicable, or specific exemptions apply.5 The notice must be in writing and specify the date, time and route of the proposed march, as well as the details of those organising it.6 It is a criminal offence to organise a protest march without notifying the police.7 It is also an offence for the organisers to change the route, date or time of a march.8 These are summary offences that can result in a fine of up to £1,000.9 There is no requirement to notify the police in advance of plans to conduct a static protest.10

Police powers in relation to protests

6. Several pieces of legislation provide a framework for the policing of protests. These include the Public Order Act 1986, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC) 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023.11 There are also an array of criminal offences which are not specific to protest situations, but which could apply to conduct during the course of a protest, such as wilful obstruction of a highway, public nuisance, and aggravated trespass.12

7. Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the PCSC Act 2022) allows conditions to be imposed on protest marches, whilst Section 14 (as amended by the PCSC Act 2022) provides the powers for imposing conditions on static protests.13 Conditions can be imposed by a senior police officer on both protest marches and static protests if, among other things, they “reasonably believe” that the protest may result in “serious public disorder”, “serious damage” to property or “serious disruption to the life of the community”.14 In such cases, the relevant senior officer can issue a direction to impose any condition on those organising or taking part in the protest that they consider necessary, to prevent the above outcomes from occurring.15 This could include conditions prescribing what route a protest march must take, banning a protest from entering certain public places, or setting out when the protest must take place or end.16

8. Those organising or participating in a protest can challenge conditions that the police have imposed in advance of a protest only by seeking a judicial review.17 Anybody who does not comply with a condition that they “know or ought to have known” has been imposed by the police is committing a criminal offence.18

9. There are limited powers to ban protest marches from going ahead at all. In some circumstances the police may feel that their usual powers for managing protest marches (i.e. their powers under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 to issue conditions on a protest march) are not sufficient to manage the risk of serious public disorder. If a chief constable reasonably believes this is the case, then under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986, they can apply to the local authority for an order that would prohibit all protest marches, or a specific type of march, from taking place in the area for a period of up to three months at a time.19 Before granting the order, the local authority must obtain the Home Secretary’s approval. In London, the Met and City of London Police must apply directly to the Home Secretary.20

10. Under Section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986, applications can also be made by the police for orders to prohibit trespassory static protests.21 However, unlike protest marches, static protests cannot be prohibited outright because of a general concern for public order.22 A chief constable can only apply to local authorities to issue an order prohibiting static protests for a specified period if they “reasonably believe” that:

  • a static protest is being planned on land that the public has no, or limited, right of access to,
  • the protest is likely to be held without the permission of the land/property’s occupier, and
  • the protest may result in “serious disruption to the community” or “significant damage” to land, building, or monument that is of historical, architectural, or scientific importance.23

As with protest marches, before granting a section 14A order, the local authority must get the Home Secretary’s approval.24 The order cannot be issued for a period exceeding four days or be applied to an area larger than a five-mile radius.25

Public Order Act 2023

11. The Public Order Act 2023 introduced new powers for the police to use during protests in cases of “serious disruption”. Section 34 of the Act defined serious disruption as cases where individuals or an organisation are, by way of physical disruption, “prevented or hindered to more than a minor degree”, from carrying out activities. Section 1 introduced criminal offences of locking-on and Section 2 introduced an offence of going equipped to lock-on.26 Section 7 introduced an offence of interfering with key national infrastructure, including airports and railways. Section 10 and 11 extended stop and search powers for the police to search for and seize objects that may be used in the commission of a protest-related offence.

Human rights legislation

12. Article 10, relating to freedom of expression, and Article 11, relating to freedom of assembly and association, of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are together designed to ensure that people have the freedom to peacefully protest.27 The Human Rights Act 1998 gave domestic effect to the ECHR, enabling individuals to bring claims based on breaches of ECHR rights before the UK courts.28

13. Articles 10 and 11 are both “qualified rights” rather than “absolute rights”, meaning that restricting or interfering with these rights may be justified in certain situations, if:

  • the basis for doing so is clearly set out in law,
  • it is necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim such as national security or public safety, the prevention of crime or disorder and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and
  • the interference is proportionate to that aim.29

14. The police have duties to not prevent, hinder or restrict peaceful assembly except to the extent allowed by the ECHR set out above, and to protect those exercising their right to protest peacefully.30 To meet these duties and act compatibly with human rights legislation, police must only exercise their powers to restrict protesters if it is considered proportionate to a “legitimate aim”. When considering actions to take, the police must also make judgements that balance the right to protest with the rights of others who may be impacted by protests. Operational advice by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) states:

A fundamental duty of the police under s6 [Section 6] of the Human Rights Act 1998 is to act in a way that is compatible with the human rights of each person involved, even if it is not possible in the circumstances to uphold those rights to the fullest extent.31

Criminal Justice Bill 2023–24

15. The Criminal Justice Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 14 November 2023, contains various measures which the Government says will protect the public, give the police the powers they need to cut crime and anti-social behaviour, and improve public confidence in the police.32 On 8 February 2024, the Home Office announced that, via amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, the police will be given powers to arrest protesters who wear face coverings to threaten others or avoid prosecution.33 Whilst police already have powers to ask individuals to remove these at designated protests, where police believe criminality is likely to occur, this new offence will empower officers to arrest individuals who disregard their orders.34 The Government also states: “flares and other pyrotechnics will also be banned from protests, and protesters will no longer be able to cite the right to protest as a reasonable excuse to get away with disruptive offences, such as blocking roads”.35

3 Policing during the King’s Coronation

16. Republic, a group that campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement with an elected head of state, organised a protest on the day of the King’s coronation, 6 May 2023.36.When he gave evidence on 17 May 2023, Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, told us he had been in communication with the Met Police since January 2023.37 The communication included writing to the Met Commissioner, and exchanges with a dedicated protest liaison officer.38 Graham Smith said: “we had been abundantly clear with them right the way through the process exactly what we were planning to do”.39

17. On the day, several people from Republic were arrested and not allowed to protest, due to the suspicion that they had “lock-on devices”.40 Graham Smith told us they had straps to secure large bundles of placards together.41 He said he had not told the police about these straps as Republic had not realised they would need them until a few days before”.42 He added “they are not physically capable, as our solicitor pointed out when she arrived at the station and as they have now accepted, of locking people on”.43

18. Additionally, three people from Westminster Night Stars—a team of volunteers helping to ensure the safety of people on a night out—were arrested during the early hours of 6 May 2023 on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, due to the police receiving intelligence that people were planning to use rape alarms to disrupt the procession.44 Suzie Melvin, a Westminster Night Stars volunteer, gave evidence to us.45 She told us that “we work in partnership with the Met Police”.46 We asked whether she thought the judgement by the police had malicious intent, given their received intelligence and the high stakes and tension of the situation on the day.47 She said: “I fully accept it as a challenging situation for the police”, but explained:

Neither I nor any of my colleagues have ever handed out a rape alarm. Across the three of us, we had potentially three or four rape alarms on us. In searching our bags and in talking to us, I am not sure why we were then arrested and detained.48

Policing response

19. We also took evidence from police representatives, including Matt Twist in his role as Temporary Assistant Commissioner for Met Operations, and Chief Constable Chris Noble, Protests Lead at the NPCC on the policing of those protests.49 AC Twist described the policing operation for the coronation as “enormous” and the “the most challenging, fast-moving and complex policing picture that we have ever encountered for a national celebration”.50 It was reported that more than 29,000 officers would be deployed in total, with tens of thousands of officers deployed from across the UK, overseas territories and crown dependencies, as well as 6,500 military ceremonial troops.51

20. AC Twist corroborated that Republic engaged with the police’s protest liaison teams in advance of the protests, and via multiple means. In regards to the protest organised by Republic, AC Twist explained that the Met had received “clear intelligence” that there was going to be a “concerted attempt to disrupt the coronation protest”. He said “officers were asked to be extremely vigilant and proactive in dealing with this. In the wider threat context, that would have played into some of the decision making”.52 Regarding the Westminster Night Star volunteers, AC Twist said the inspector on duty at Westminster control room spoke to Westminster City Council, but the officer they spoke to could not confirm knowledge of the organisation.53

21. AC Twist explained that these protests represented the first time that new powers under the Public Order Act 2023 had been used.54 Overall, 52 protest activity-related arrests were made, including “proactive arrests to prevent a breach of the peace and causing public nuisance”.55 The Met issued a statement on 9 May 2023 with regard to arrests made of Republic protestors, who were later released without charge.56 While the Met said it regrets that those people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters, in a separate article Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Met Police said he supported “the officers’ actions in this unique fast moving operational context”.57 When we asked if officers were nervous or overzealous, he said:

I don’t know whether that is the case. Everybody knew the significance of the event [ … ] I do not think that “over-zealous” is the right word. Of course we were cautious, in the context of the largest security operation we have ever run, the once-in-a generation, once-in-a-lifetime event and no second chances to get it right.58

We asked if there was anything the police could have done differently.59 AC Twist said:

My initial takeaway from this would be that, had we been better able to connect those officers who were making the arrests and forming their reasonable grounds with the protest liaison teams, which were also deployed but elsewhere on the footprint, that may—I stress “may”—have led to a different outcome.60

22. There is a balance to be struck between the right of people to protest and the right of others to go about their everyday lives and to feel safe. The police should have the appropriate powers to safeguard the exercise of both these rights. The differing scale, nature and frequency of protests over recent years has led to increased scrutiny of the way in which the right to protest is exercised and policed.

23. Disruptive tactics by protest organisers led to the Government enacting new legislation to provide the police with more powers, via the Public Order Act 2023. Some of these powers were used for the first time during the policing of the King’s Coronation, but the occasion was not necessarily a good test of the effectiveness of these new powers as it did not involve large-scale use of the kind of tactics the Act was intended to address.

24. We recommend that the Government carries out post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, to begin two years after it received Royal Assent.

4 Israel-Gaza protests

25. Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law, and controls Gaza. On 7 October 2023, Hamas commenced a terrorist attack against Israel.61 On 8 October 2023, in response to the attacks, the Israeli security cabinet formally declared war against Hamas and said it would carry out “significant military activities” against it.62 The conflict between Hamas and Israel has been ongoing since.63

26. Nationwide demonstrations relating to this conflict, including public assemblies (such as sit-ins and vigils), and public processions (such as marches), began on 9 October 2023 and have continued since, with over 900 protests occurring from 7 October 2023 to 6 December 2023.64 The majority of the Israel-Gaza demonstrations have been organised by one, or a coalition of, the following six groups:

  • Palestine Solidarity Campaign;
  • Friends of Al-Aqsa;
  • Stop the War Coalition;
  • Palestinian Forum in Britain;
  • Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and
  • The Muslim Association of Britain.65

27. The first protest was held outside the Israeli Embassy and was reportedly attended by thousands of people.66 Simultaneously, a vigil in support of Israel was held outside Downing Street.67 The Met issued a statement stating three arrests were made on Oxford Street and in the Kensington area.68 The first protest march took place in central London on 14 October 2023.69 After the march, the Met issued a statement in which it said that seven arrests had been made.70 It added that “the protest concluded without major issue, and thousands of people were able to express themselves at the planned demonstration”.71

28. From 14 October 2023, the coalition organised weekly protest marches where attendance has ranged from a few hundred to several hundreds of thousands.72 From 4 November to 16 December 2023, the coalition of Israel-Gaza protests organisers organised bi-weekly national protest marches, and every other week called for a “day of action”, with smaller localised protests. On 12 December 2023, Chief Constable Chris Haward, who at the time was the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)’s Lead for Race and Religion and Gold Commander for Operation Tarlac, (the national co-ordination of the policing response to Israel and Gaza), said:

At the moment we are seeing the pattern of national protests one week, then a local protest, and so far, including for the Met, there have been just over 900 protests to police since the beginning of October and 100 smaller events across the country, ranging from a few hundred people to several thousand, peaking at between 6,000 and 10,000 in Manchester and Glasgow and other Scottish cities.73

On 1 December 2023 the Met issued a statement which said there had been 289 arrests during protests or other public gatherings relating to the conflict in the Middle East.74

29. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign held their first national protest of 2024 on 13 January in central London. Hundreds of thousands attended, and the Met reported a total of nine arrests.75

30. These protests have been characterised as peaceful overall, by both Israel-Gaza protest organisers, and police representatives.76 Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, described the protests as “overwhelmingly peaceful”, with “an extremely low rate of arrests, given the extraordinary large numbers of people who have been marching”.77 Chris Nineham, Vice Chair at Stop the War Coalition said that most of the arrests had been for issues other than public order.78 He added:

We have just been analysing all the stats coming from the police on arrests. On the demonstrations themselves, there have been almost no examples of any kind of disorder, which is something the police themselves have said. There have been very, very low levels of disorder, and the demonstrations have been very well organised and very peaceful.79

Matt Twist, Assistant Commissioner for Met Operations, said “I am very clear in saying that the overwhelming majority of people on these marches are there to do so lawfully and peacefully”.80 CC Haward added “overall, we have seen very peaceful protests, given the numbers that have turned out”.81

31. However, some people have made the point that the number of arrests is a reflection only of the number of offences detected, and not necessarily of the number of offences committed. Gideon Falter, Chief Executive of the Campaign against Antisemitism, said “going and saying very unpeaceful things, indeed criminal things, in a peaceful way, is not the same as having a peaceful protest”.82 When discussing the number of arrests, Dr Dave Rich, Director of Policy at the Community Security Trust said the number of 289 arrests up to 1 December is “not an insignificant number” and that it is a number “we should not be complacent about”.83 He added “we have to bear in mind that those are only the cases where the police have been able to identify, locate and arrest someone for committing an offence”.84

32. Lord Walney, the independent adviser on political violence and disruption, who has been considering the protests and their implications, also said it is important not to “simply judge this by the number of arrests. He added “I do not think we should simply judge the level of criminality that is occurring on these demonstrations from the number of arrests, I think there was a significant level of offences above that”.85

Armistice day

33. The coalition of Israel-Gaza protest organisers planned a protest march in central London for 11 November 2023, Armistice Day. On 2 November 2023, Sir Mark Rowley was questioned by the London Assembly on policing in London.86 When asked whether there was a plan for what would happen if there was a protest on Remembrance weekend, he said “we will ensure that if there is a march that weekend, it will not collide with or interfere with that”.87 On 3 November 2023, the Prime Minister wrote to Sir Mark Rowley to express concern about organised protests on Armistice Day.88 He said:

To plan protests on Armistice Day is provocative and disrespectful, and there is a clear and present risk that the Cenotaph and other war memorials could be desecrated [ … ] While rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association are protected under the law, these are qualified rights and must be set against the protection of health or morals and the rights and freedoms of others. The right to remember, in peace and dignity, those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for those freedoms must be protected also.89

He outlined a number of powers the police have “to ensure protests do not disrupt or disturb Remembrance activity.90

34. In response, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign released a statement on behalf of the protest coalition on 3 November 2023:

Our planned route is Hyde Park to the US embassy, and we anticipate that the march will begin around 12.45PM, nearly 2 hours after the minute silence of commemoration for the war dead.

We are alarmed by members of the Government, including the Prime Minster, issuing statements suggesting that the march is a direct threat to the Cenotaph and designed to disrupt the Remembrance Day commemorations.

Such statements are encouraging the calls from far-right activists and commentators who appear to be inciting action on the streets to stop the protests taking place and are deeply irresponsible.91

35. On 6 November 2023, after meeting with the protest organisers, the Met issued a statement asking that they “urgently reconsider” going ahead with the protests.92 Although acknowledging the “the positive work of organisers who have supported tens of thousands of people to protest peacefully and lawfully”, it said that “senior officers are concerned at criminal acts by breakaway groups intent on fuelling disorder who are attracted by these regular events”.93 Within the statement, Deputy AC Ade Adelekan said “Our message to organisers is clear: Please, we ask you to urgently reconsider. It is not appropriate to hold any protests in London this weekend”.94 The same day, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign issued a statement in response.95 It said “it is categorically untrue that the Police told us that it was not appropriate to protest this weekend”.96

36. The Met issued another statement the next day, 7 November 2023, confirming the protest would go ahead.97 Sir Mark Rowley said:

The reason we have an independent police service is so that among debate, opinion, emotion and conflict, we stand in the centre, focused simply on the law and the facts in front of us. The laws created by Parliament are clear. There is no absolute power to ban protest, therefore there will be a protest this weekend.98

37. Within the statement, Sir Mark Rowley explained that, as we have noted above, there is legislation (section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986) available to ban protests altogether if there is risk of serious public disorder. But he said that “the use of this power is extremely rare and must be based on intelligence”, and the last time this legislation was used to ban a march “was over a decade ago”.99 He added “the intelligence surrounding the potential for serious disorder this weekend does not meet the threshold to apply for a ban”.100 On 8 November 2023 the then Home Secretary, Rt Hon Suella Braverman MP, wrote an article titled “Police must be even-handed with protests”, in which she described the Israel-Gaza protesters as “hate marchers”. She suggested that there was a perception that senior police officers played favourites when it comes to protesters and said “It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they are likely to get than whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority”.101

38. The protest went ahead as planned. There were 126 arrests made on the day. Some 100 of these arrests were of far right extremist counter-protesters, who caused severe disruption across central London, including near the Cenotaph in Whitehall and in Vauxhall along the Israel-Gaza protest march.102 AC Twist issued a statement that evening:

The extreme violence from the right wing protestors towards the police today was extraordinary and deeply concerning [ … ] While the Palestine Solidarity Campaign march did not see the sort of physical violence carried out by the right wing, we know that for London’s Jewish communities whose fears and concerns we absolutely recognise, the impact of hate crime and in particular anti-Semitic offences is just as significant.103

The Prime Minister issued a statement condemning “the violent, wholly unacceptable scenes” seen from the English Defence League counter protesters, and “associated groups and Hamas sympathisers attending the National March for Palestine”.104

Other Israel-Gaza protests

39. There have been a number of Israel-Gaza protests organised by other groups and individuals.

40. There have been a small number of demonstrations outside MPs’ and other elected representatives’ offices and homes.105 We were concerned by the level of criminality at these demonstrations and the impact it was having on the elected representatives, their families and their staff. Ben Jamal said that these particular protests were not organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.106 But he added that he thought “protesting outside an MP’s office is a legitimate way of holding an MP to account”.107 AC Twist also mentioned a constituency office as a place where people can legitimately protest, but added it felt “unacceptable to target people’s homes”.108 Furthermore, he spoke of guidance he has sent to his officers to “ensure places of work can function as places of work”.109 He said:

That means that people should not be intimidated coming and going, and free access should be available. While it might be legitimate protest, on the other side of the road might be the best place as opposed to crowding around somebody’s front door. Of course, if people commit individual offences, whether under the Public Order Act or the Criminal Damage Act, we have a clear expectation that we would deal with it and set the tone that this is not acceptable. In a democratic society, we need our elected representatives to be able to act with their conscience and to do their job. They cannot do that if they are worried about people intimidating them.110

41. AC Jukes told us he thinks “it will have a chilling effect on democracy if people cannot live and work and their families and constituency office employees do not feel safe”.111 He said that in his work specifically protecting MPs, he has recorded “about double the number of offences” since October 7.112 AC Jukes added that he is “concerned in the region of 20,000 councillors and other elected leaders in devolved Administrations and mayoral administrations who also need attention in this respect”.113

42. More recent protests include outside the home of Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood MP on 12 February 2024, where around 80 protesters gathered for several hours. Other examples include outside the home of Steve Reed MP, where, worryingly, it was claimed that police did not attend.

43. Whilst we respect the right to protest, we are clear that no one, including elected representatives, their families, and their staff, should be made to feel unsafe by protest activity outside their home. Likewise, no one should be intimidated when they are coming and going from their place of work. AC Twist said: “Places of work seem to be a legitimate place to protest.” However, MPs have raised concerns about the impact on the staff who work in their offices, who are facing intimidation and violent attacks. We were pleased to hear the Met reiterate that in a democratic society elected representatives must be able to do their job in accordance with their consciences, and free from intimidation.

44. We are aware that Lord Walney’s review, which will look at whether powers for enhanced protection for public spaces could be extended to offices of elected representatives, is with the Home Office. We look forward to a much more urgent response from the Government.

March against Antisemitism

45. On Sunday 26 November 2023, the Campaign Against Antisemitism organised a protest march, entitled a “March against Antisemitism”. Gideon Falter, Director of the Campaign Against Antisemitism said that over 100,000 people were present.114 He described it “as the largest gathering against antisemitism in this country in a lifetime, since the battle of Cable Street in 1936”.115

46. The Met reported that they made two arrests during this protest, including that of the English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson.116 In a statement on X, the Met said:

We have been in frequent contact with the organisers of the march in recent days. They have been clear about their concerns that the man’s attendance, and that those who were likely to accompany him, would cause fear for other participants. [ … ] As a result, he was spoken to and warned on more than one occasion that his continued presence in the area was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others. He was directed to leave the area but refused to do so.117

47. Comparing the protest with the Israel-Gaza protests, Gideon Falter said his perception was “there is a great difference in the way these things are policed.118 He said that he thinks the police “look inward, largely” at the Israel-Gaza protests for criminality, and at the March against Antisemitism protest, he thought the police looked outward.119 He added “if anybody wants to know what a peace march looks like, they should look at the march against antisemitism”.120

Policing response

48. AC Twist told us that “the Met police is very experienced at dealing with complex protests and major events.”121. He added, they “have widely and effectively used public order legislation to minimise serious disruption caused by some of the extremely large protests in London”.122 We asked how the police approach the policing of protests, AC Twist explained:

First, we look to prevent crime. We do that by giving out leaflets, having people at the assembly points, looking to spot people and using evidence gatherers and intelligence teams based around an assembly point. We then need a capability to intervene if crimes are seen. That requires having significant numbers of officers at different points along the route ready to intervene if our Voyager teams, who are monitoring the CCTV, spot people. At the end of any march or assembly, we need the ability to ensure an effective dispersal [ … ]

we have used more and more of our legal framework to the point where I think that we are using the maximum we can to impose preconditions under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act in relation to assemblies. We use section 60AA on the wearing of face coverings and asking people to remove it. At the end of an assembly, once the stated end time of the protest has happened, we use section 35 dispersal orders to prevent the crime and disorder we have seen [ … ]

About 2,000 to 3,000 officers are needed just for that. If you take everything into account, including road closures, identification, charge centres, investigators, as well as the public order officers deployed on the ground, it is much bigger than that.123

49. He went on to explain that the police have also changed their tactics recently, to make their response more effective. He said:

Early on we did not see a lot of things because of the size of the crowds and were only picking it up on social media afterwards, which led to a reactive investigation [ … ] As the operation has evolved [ … ] you may have seen some of our Voyager tactics, looking at social media live, looking through the lens of enhanced CCTV that we have put up and have specialists watching, and then using tools like retrospective facial recognition to identify individuals and guide people in to make arrests.

However, he explained there have been some problems with social media. He said one of their “significant challenges” is people posting things on social media that did not occur during that protest and therefore do not relate to the current policing incident at hand.124 He gave the example of an image being shared of a number of Muslims praying in Westminster Abbey, but the image shared originated in 2016. AC Twist said this had been put up to “fuel hate and polarisation”.125

50. The Met have also used social media to communicate with the public. This has included live commentary via its platform on X on protest days, including the progression of the protest, updates on the number of arrests made, and responding to comments as to why content that is being shared with them has not yet led to an arrest. Chris Nineham said the police’s use of social media has implied that the protests have been “somehow problematic” and been part of a “wider tendency to mischaracterise the demonstrations”.126 Gideon Falter also expressed concerns over the police’s use of social media to explain why instances were not leading to arrests. He said:

I think some of the messaging coming from the Metropolitan police about what is and is not acceptable is absolutely extraordinary [ … ] In any of the demonstrations that we have seen policed on this or any other topic, I have never seen the police pre-emptively put something out saying, “We will not be taking action against this kind of thing.” That is unprecedented, as far as we are aware.127

Dr Dave Rich said he thought the use of social media was “probably well-intentioned but misguided to try to explain something as complex and nuanced as the application of laws”.128

51. The police have handed out leaflets at Israel-Gaza marches.129 The leaflets set out that the Met supports the right to protest, and include advice for protesters to keep on the right side of the law.130

Figure 1: Met leaflet distributed to protesters

A copy of a two-sided A5 leaflet provided to protesters produced by the Metropolitan Police, providing advice to protestors. The first page reads as follows: Keep on the Right Side of the Law The law protects the right to lawful protest, and the Met Police supports your right to legally make your voice heard. However, the law also protects people from racist abuse and from terrorism being promoted. Whilst the majority of people are complying with these rules, a minority have crossed the line. The second page provides a list of things protestors should not do to avoid ending up in police cells, including advice about binning signs or placards that might break the rules.

Source: Metropolitan Police - Met releases details of policing operation ahead of further protests, accessed 06 February 2024

52. Chris Nineham said giving out leaflets was “very unusual and in fact, unprecedented talking about possible arrests”.131 Ben Jamal questioned why protesters “involved in a largely peaceful protest—which is what all the protests had been, with people abiding by the law—needed to be reminded of what the law said in relation to hate crime.”132 Dr Dave Rich said he thought the police had to issue leaflets “because so many of the marchers are clearly not capable of working that out for themselves”.133

53. We asked police representatives why they chose to hand out these leaflets. AC Twist said:

We are responding to what we see in the crowds. These are very large protests with the overwhelming majority of people protesting peacefully and lawfully, but every week a small number of people are committing hate crime, or worse, supporting terrorists, with the placards and things that they are waving.

One of the interventions we took around crime prevention to reassure the public or communities was asking people to stay on the right side of the law and to give them an indication as to what might be illegal, in case they were wondering. It sounds basic, I know, but we have seen all this. We are asking them to avoid racist or hateful speech against any faith, to avoid supporting Hamas—it is a proscribed organisation; it is illegal—and to avoid celebrating or promoting acts of terrorism. We felt that we needed to do this because we want to set a tone.134

54. We questioned why leaflets were not distributed at the March Against Antisemitism. AC Twist said “we have only given out leaflets at the main Palestinian Solidarity Campaign marches.135 That is because that is where we have seen the reporting”. He added, that he would review that decision if he saw reporting of either proscribed or hateful material at other marches.136

55. We also asked about the stewarding operation on protest marches. AC Twist told he thinks “the fact that stewards exist and are managing the crowd is helpful”.137 CC Haward also said that stewarding had been good”.138 But, AC Twist said that he would like to see stewards reporting concerns to officers, as both him and CC Haward said there had not had any direct reports from stewards to officers.139

Response to policing operation

56. Chris Nineham said the police have been part of a wider tendency to mischaracterise the demonstrations.140 He explained:

That has included an unprecedented use of section 12 orders. It has included huge police mobilisations, which have been very publicly presented. [ … ] And it has included generally tweeting and social media-ing about the demonstrations and implying that they have been somehow problematic.141

Similarly Ben Jamal also spoke about the use of Section 12 orders and said he thinks “they are entirely disproportionate”.142 On the other hand, the Campaign against Antisemitism has called for further use of the Section 12 orders and stronger conditions to be imposed on marches. It said:

We would strongly urge the police–as we have for weeks now–to use their powers under sections 12 (or as appropriate section 14) of the Public Order Act 1986 (“the Public Order Act”) to impose conditions which include limits on the numbers permitted at the weekly pro- Palestine demonstrations, so that they can be effectively policed and any criminality can effectively (and immediately) addressed.143

57. Gideon Falter described the policing of these demonstrations as “extremely lax” and believed that there has been a “failure of policing”.144 He said:

Frankly, I think that senior police officers have been letting down frontline officers by failing to provide sufficient numbers and by telling police officers, it appears, to take a standoffish attitude rather than going in and enforcing the law, as you said—so be it. We need to have more police officers.145

Dr Dave Rich on the other hand stated that the police had improved their operation.146 In his view, policing had shifted away from a strategic focus on the maintenance of public order, towards a recognition of the impact on communities should criminality be seen to go unpunished. He said “they have started to do that, and it is very welcome”, and added “I am not saying that the police are getting everything right, but we are seeing a genuine effort to improve in this area and to intervene”. We asked whether he thought police officers are made aware of the legislative powers they have in their training for policing protests. Dr Rich said he thought the ongoing challenge the police were facing was to what extent officers understand the full range of legislation that is open to them, given “that a lot of the officers on these protests may not be Met officers; they may have come in from other forces, so they may not have as much experience of policing these protests”.

58. Gideon Falter has called for the police to ban further protests:

If they cannot muster more police officers because these things are so huge and uncontrollable [ … ] I think we have reached the point where, if the police are unable to enforce the law and uphold the law of the land, then a ban is probably the only measure that would enable the law to be upheld on our streets.147

Conversely, Dame Sara Khan, previous Lead Commissioner for Countering Extremism, asked us to consider the consequences of banning protests.148 She explained:

One of the major concerns I would have is that denying people the ability to protest could possibly fuel further radicalisation. If you deny people legal and lawful means to protest in this country, I worry that will make some people on the more extreme end commit more violent and illegal means to make their voice and views heard [ … ] That is not going to lessen the work of the police, counter-terrorism policing or MI5.149

Relationship between protest organisers and the police

59. In his evidence to the Committee, Ben Jamal argued that whenever a march is organised by the coalition, they “always operate on the basis of meeting with the police and seeking to co-operate with the police”, and that conversation “is fundamental for issues of public safety”.150 Chris Nineham said they had been “in constant touch, or regular contact, with the police about the demonstrations”, but added there were areas of concern where “things got difficult with the police”.151 One of those areas of concern was regarding the characterisation of the protests.152 He said:

The first is that I think the police have been part of a wider tendency to mischaracterise the demonstrations and to give the impression—despite their official statements, oddly—that they are somehow, to quote our former Home Secretary, “hate marches” and somehow violent or hateful or in some way threatening.153

60. Policing representatives told us they had a good relationship with protest organisers. CC Haward said “Overall, the communication and engagement with those who organise protests has been very good”.154 AC Twist told us that their engagement with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, as principal organisers of the protests, has been good.155 He explained “they are telling us when they are going to do either national callout protests or local events in London”.156 But, he added there have been occasions where “communication has not been as good as we would like”.157 He added:

It is important to note that the Met has asked organisers to communicate clearly with attendees and set out expectations. It is clear that on social media they have done so to some extent. While organisers have made some efforts, however, we would like them to do more, to clearly call out unacceptable and potentially illegal behaviours at the events.158

Police resource

61. CC Haward and AC Twist told us that policing these protests has led to the greatest period of sustained pressure on the Met since the Olympics in 2012.159 AC Twist provided a breakdown of the resource needed and the cost:

From the 7th of October 2023 to the 17th of December 2023, 26,121 officer shifts have been needed to police demonstrations and vigils, this includes 2,382 shifts from officers on mutual aid. To meet this demand 4,017 rest days have been cancelled due to the pressing need could not be reasonably avoided. [ … ] We currently estimate the total Op Brocks cost to the Met to be £18.9 million from 7 October to 17 December 23. This is made up of £9.5 million of opportunity costs and £9.4 million in additional cost.160

CC Haward told us about the resource needed from a national perspective:

The total for mutual aid going into London over the previous weekends was just over 2,200 because support has been going into BTP [British Transport Police] as well. For November only, I can say that we have had nearly 2,000 officers deployed on protests outside of London [ … ] Resourcing is difficult but we have tested that and at the moment, in terms of our resilience, we have been deploying about 18% of our total assets.161

CC Haward also provided a financial breakdown from a national perspective, excluding costs incurred by the Met, from 7 October 2023 to 10th December 2023:

The collection of returns from police forces across the UK indicates a real cost to policing protest of £6.5 million during the nine-week period from the 7th October. There is an indicative cost incurred from the additional engagement activities that have been delivered across the UK of just over £1million in the same period.162

62. We heard that the protests can be unpredictable to resource. AC Twist said that “something that is advertised as a small protest mid-week, for a couple of hundred people, can suddenly end up with 3,000 to 5,000, which is much more challenging to manage”. AC Twist said:

It is abundantly clear that no matter how many officers we position on the route, in a march of 300,000 people they are not going to see everything. The crowds are 30, 40, 50 deep in places as they move down Park Lane or Whitehall.163

Matt Jukes, Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Met and the national lead for counter-terrorism policing, noted the “human side” of resource constraints. He said “thousands of officers are carrying out relentless public order duties and local policing colleagues contending with the consequences of those officers’ absence, as well as an increase in hate crimes”.164

Wider implications for policing

63. We launched our inquiry into Policing priorities in July 2022 because we were concerned by the number of forces, including the Met, in special measures, and by an all-time low of public confidence in policing.165 Our key conclusion was that that the first priority for policing in England and Wales should be to look inward and ensure it has the right people and right culture to deliver a service that earns public trust, confidence and consent.

64. During the Policing priorities inquiry, we considered whether the police had a workforce fit for the future, with the Met being the only force which failed to hit its recruitment target for new police officers via the Uplift programme. We concluded that crime crosses force boundaries, and requires both officers and staff with the right skills and experience to tackle evolving patterns of crime. Therefore, it must be a priority of the Government to set out how it intends to work with forces to deliver an effective workforce strategy. We decided that it is no longer sufficient that individual forces design their own workforce plans, recommending that the Home Office set out a national workforce plan and strategy for policing over the next ten years, which should address officer and staff numbers and skills.

65. In response to our recommendation, the Government did not commit to implementing a national workforce strategy. The response stated that it was important for “each police force” to have an effective workforce plan, to meet current and future needs.166 As we have heard that the police have been deploying around 18% of their total assets from across the country to police recent protests, with the “same resources being used week in, week out”, nationwide strategic planning appears more important than ever.

66. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the right of people to protest and the right of people to go about their daily lives. We wholeheartedly support both these rights and recognise that finding the balance between competing rights can be challenging, particularly in terms of operational policing on the ground. In the context of the policing of recent Israel-Gaza protests, as with the policing of the King’s Coronation protests, we conclude that this balance was generally maintained, even if individual incidents inevitably tested that balance. Likewise, while the ongoing protests have tested the operational independence of the police, as have some of the communications around the protests, we conclude that it has ultimately been maintained.

67. The repetitive nature of the recent large Israel-Gaza protests places considerable resource constraints on the police. This places additional pressure on the Met, which, having failed to meet the Uplift target, already struggles to meet the regular demands of policing London. The protests further drain police resource with more than 4,000 cancelled rest-days, and the same police officers being deployed week in, week out. We are concerned both about the effect on other aspects of policing, and about the human impact and the wellbeing of these police officers. With many officers regularly being deployed from outside of the Met, and should these protests continue indefinitely, it stands to reason that forces across the country will be less able to carry out the everyday neighbourhood and response policing that is so vital to the public.

68. Should these protests continue week after week, the Home Office should consider amending requirements for protest organisers, such as increasing the notice period for protest organisers to inform the police from the current six days, to allow the police to prepare better.

69. Following the policing priorities inquiry, we concluded that it was no longer sufficient for individual police forces to design their own workforce plans and recommended that the Home Office set out and implement a national workforce strategy that addresses officer and staff numbers and skills. The resource demands of the policing of recent protests demonstrate again that a wider national workforce plan is needed.

70. We again recommend that the Home Office set out a workforce plan and strategy for policing over the next ten years as a matter of urgency. As previously set out, the plan should address officer and staff numbers and skills and particular attention should be placed on recognised areas of shortage. London has unique challenges in this respect, including the policing of protest, which should be taken into consideration. The plan should be subject to periodic review and impact analysis.

71. In the absence of a national workforce plan and strategy, the Home Office and partners within policing must review the Strategic Policing Requirement and supporting documents, to ensure that public order requirements and operating models remain fit for purpose in the face of evolving approaches to protest.

72. We recently called for an urgent review and update of the Police Allocation Formula, setting out points for future review in advance to facilitate effective planning by PCCs and forces. The Home Office must ensure that police funding recognises the true nature of demand upon the service and provides the resource it needs to meet them.

5 Hate crime and terrorist offences

Hate-crime

73. The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have agreed the following definition for identifying hate crimes:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.167

74. Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either demonstrated or been motivated by hostility based on race or religion, and any crime can be sentenced more severely if the offender has either demonstrated or been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.168 Someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime.

75. The Government first published a hate-crime action plan for England and Wales in 2016.169 It was a four-year plan that set out actions that the Government would take to prevent, respond to, build an understanding of and increase reporting of hate crime, and to improve support for victims.170 In 2018, the Government published an updated plan and details of actions taken since 2016, as well as a thematic review of evidence on hate crime.171 The Government have not published an action plan for 2020 onwards, but on 19 May 2022, the then-Minister for Safeguarding, Rachel Maclean MP, said “the Government’s new strategy for tackling hate crime will be published shortly”.172 It is yet to be published.

Rise in reported hate-crimes since 7 October

76. There has been a rise in incidents reported as hate crimes since 7 October 2023. Matt Twist, Assistant Commissioner for Met Operations, said there were more than 800 open cases of reported hate crimes in the Met alone as of 12 December 2023. Over 6,000 hours of officer time would be needed to investigate them all.173

77. Discussing hate crimes reported to the police, Chief Constable Chris Haward, then-National Lead for Race and Religion at the NPCC and Gold Commander for Operation Tarlac said the figure for reported antisemitic crime was up by 680% year on year and the figure for reported Islamophobic crime was up by 140% year on year.174 He added “there does seem to be a pattern that coincides with national protests, when we see spikes on the weekends when those events are happening or when events of significance happen in Gaza”.175

Rise in reported antisemitism

78. The Community Security Trust has a dedicated team that deals with antisemitic incidents.176 It defines an antisemitic incident as “any malicious act aimed at Jewish people, organisations or property, where there is evidence that the act has antisemitic motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because they were (or were believed to be) Jewish”.177

79. Between 7 October 2023 and 13 December 2023, the Community Security Trust recorded at least 2,093 reported antisemitic incidents across the UK, which is a five-fold rise from cases recorded across the same period in 2022.178 The Community Security Trust said this is the highest ever total reported across a 68-day period.179 Of the 2,093 incidents, 1,468 occurred offline and 625 were online. There were:

  • 95 cases of assaults,
  • 127 cases of damage & desecration to Jewish property,
  • 165 cases of direct threats,
  • 1,699 cases of abusive behaviour, including verbal abuse, graffiti on non-Jewish property, hate mail and online abuse, and
  • 7 instances of mass-produced antisemitic literature.180

80. The Community Security Trust record where reported antisemitic incidents have occurred. The majority were recorded in Greater London and Greater Manchester, and large number were recorded across 34 other regions.

Figure 2: Reported antisemitic incidents between 7 October 2023 and 13 December 2023

A bar chart showing the number of reported antisemitic incidents by area in England between the 7 October 2023 and 13 December 2023. The chart shows the most reports were recorded in Greater London and Greater Manchester, and fewer reports recorded in Avon and Somerset, and Nottinghamshire.

Source: Community Security Trust, Antisemitic incidents–13 December update, accessed 06 February 2024

81. Polling by the Campaign Against Antisemitism revealed:

  • Almost half of British Jews have considered leaving the UK due to antisemitism, since 7 October.
  • More than six in 10 British Jews have either personally experienced or witnessed an antisemitic incident since 7 October or know somebody who has.
  • Only 16% of British Jews believe that the police treat antisemitic hate crime like other forms of hate crime, with two thirds believing that the police apply a double standard.181
Rise in reported islamophobia / anti-Muslim hate crimes

82. Tell MAMA runs the MAMA project, an independent service Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks.182 They define an anti-Muslim attack as:

Any malicious act aimed at Muslims, their material property or Islamic organisations and where there is evidence that the act has anti-Muslim motivation or content, or that the victim was targeted because of their Muslim identity. This also includes incidents where the victim was perceived to be a Muslim.183

83. Between 7 October 2023 and 13 December 2023, Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 reported cases of anti-Muslim attacks, which is a seven-fold rise from reported cases recorded across the same period in 2022.184 Tell MAMA said this represents the “the largest rise in reports to our service across 68 days”. Of the 1,432 reported cases, 613 of these were offline.185 These were:

  • 387 cases of abusive behaviour,
  • 52 cases of threats,
  • 49 cases of assaults,
  • 46 cases of acts of vandalism,
  • 40 cases of discrimination,
  • 28 cases of acts of hate speech, and
  • 11 examples of anti-Muslim literature.186

Via online platforms, they received reports of 819 cases, ranging from “racist, dehumanising memes to calls for violence towards Muslims, as noted white supremacists and far-right account holders pushed racist conspiracies of so-called “replacement” or stigmatised Muslims as criminals and terror threats”.187

84. Tell MAMA also record where reported incidents have occurred. The majority were recorded London and the northwest.

Figure 3: Reported anti-Muslim attacks between 7 October 2023 and 13 December 2023

A bar chart showing the number of reported anti-Muslim attacks by area across the United Kingdom between the 7 October 2023 and 13 December 2023. The chart shows the most reports were recorded in Greater London and Greater Manchester, and fewer reports recorded in Avon and Somerset, and Nottinghamshire.

Source: Tell MAMA, Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 anti-Muslim cases between Oct 7 and Dec 13, accessed 06 February 2024

85. Dame Sara Khan, previous Lead Commissioner for Countering Extremism, told us that there is a “significant underreporting of Muslims experiencing anti-Muslim hatred, which should be taken into consideration”.188 She added “it is very difficult, but I do think that it is important that we get better at listening to the fears and concerns within Muslim communities”.189

86. Discussing the rise in reports, Yasmine Adam, head of media and politics at the Muslim Association of Britain, said she believed the rhetoric from the Government characterising the protests as “hate marches, as being widely violent, and as being antisemitic” has led to an increase in Islamophobia.190 She said:

When a far-right person feels confident enough to throw an empty petrol can with the words “IDF” on it at a mosque, there is no sense of there being solidarity from the Government. The main lens through which the Government sees Muslims is through that of securitisation. That is the rhetoric that we have seen. When Mark Rowley calls for an increase in state powers with regards to hate crime and terror legislation the Government failed to act to deal with hate crime.191

Rise in reported terrorist offences

87. Matt Jukes, Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at the Met, and the national lead for counter-terrorism policing, said that his team were responding to “an astonishing increase in online objectional material associated with the conflict”.192 He explained:

We peaked at a twelvefold increase in the number of public referrals of online material. Of over 2,500 such referrals, around 500 have required investigation as potential breaches of UK terrorism legislation. The number of calls to the anti-terrorist hotline has doubled and there has been a significant increase in the amount of useful intelligence coming from communities from that hotline. Overall, there has been an increase of about 25% in the amount of intelligence flowing through counter-terrorism policing [ … ]

Compared with the last decade, the numbers of arrests during the past two months for offences that relate to supporting or glorifying terrorism are unprecedented and are part of an overall picture of a concerning environment where people are potentially energised towards extremist ideologies.193

88. He told us that the Met had made 22 arrests for terrorism offences since the start of the conflict in the Middle East.194 He said not all of them have been at protests, but some of them have been online.195 He added “I compare that with 12 or 13 in the peak years of the last decade. So in two months, 22 arrests compared with 12 or 13”.196

89. We asked AC Jukes if his team have sufficient resource to deal with this large increase.197 He said there are a number of areas that concern him, and where he is having to make difficult choices. He added that “resources are under greater pressure at this moment than they have been for a number of years”.198

Reported offences at Israel-Gaza marches

90. We asked Israel-Gaza protest organisers about the level of offensive or illegal material displayed during the protests.199 Chris Nineham of the Stop the War Coalition said there have been “extremely small numbers” of offensive or illegal materials seen, and said the fact that there have been few arrests “attests to the fact that we are talking about a very, very, very tiny minority of people who are doing these things”.200 Ben Jamal of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign added “on most of these marches what we have seen is a maximum of about 10 to 15 placards or incidents”, and that there have been “a tiny handful of incidents” where there has been evidence of people glorifying terrorism.201

91. Conversely, Gideon Falter said there had been “such criminality on display regularly” at the protest marches, and was critical of the police response. He said:

We have already seen the Metropolitan police putting out tweets during marches with videos of people committing criminal acts, saying that they were not criminal acts, and later having to change their line. The Metropolitan police have been getting it wrong, and there has been a significant effort to whitewash criminality on these marches and to whitewash the antisemitism that we have been seeing. Unfortunately, there is a significant degree of it; there are plenty of videos and photographs of it.202

Lord Walney, in his capacity as the independent adviser on political violence and disruption, also agreed that there was a significant level of offences above the number of arrests being made.203

92. AC Twist told us there he believes “the overwhelming majority of people on the protests are there to do so lawfully and peacefully”.204 But, he went on to say “on every occasion so far we have found offences of hate crime, supporting a proscribed organisation and people looking to intimidate. They are very small numbers but they exist none the less”.205

Should hate crime or terrorism legislation be amended?

93. Following a protest led by Hizb ut-Tahrir (since 19 January 2024, a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law) on 21 October 2023, the Met was criticized in the media over its apparent lack of action. The then Home Secretary, Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP, sought to discuss with Sir Mark Rowley why arrests were not made.206 In an interview with ITV, Sir Mark suggested that hate crime laws may need redrawing.207 He said:

The conversation finished really around the line of the law. It’s our job to enforce to that line. It’s Parliament’s job to draw that line. And the thought that maybe events at the moment … maybe some of the lines aren’t quite in the right place [ … ]

The law that we’ve designed around hate crime and terrorism over recent decades hasn’t taken full account of the ability of extremist groups to steer around those laws and propagate some pretty toxic messages through social media and those lines probably need redrawing.208

94. Reflecting on Sir Mark suggestion that hate crime laws need to be redrawn, Yasmine Adam of the Muslim Association of Britain said “the solution is not to increase state power”.209 She said:

There is a slight track record here whereby the Government, during times of crisis, use legislation to tighten our civil rights. The response to a minority of incidences occurring on these protests is not to increase state legislation, because then we set an extremely dangerous precedent on not just the ceasefire protest, but any cause.210

95. We asked Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism whether the law needs to be changed, or whether the law is sufficient and not properly enforced.211 He said, “there are definitely gaps in the law, but by and large the main problem we are seeing at the moment is that the law is not being properly enforced”.212 He added:

So the law, as it stands, is not being enforced, but there are certainly amendments that ought to be made in respect of hateful extremism and also in a way to tighten the law around restricting some of these demonstrations that go on week after week after week, and cause this kind of harm.213

Hateful extremism

96. The Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) was first launched in 2017 in response to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. The CCE exists to provide the Government with impartial, expert advice and scrutiny on the tools, policies and approaches needed to tackle extremism. Dame Sara Khan was appointed the first Lead Commissioner in 2018.

97. The CCE published two reports under Dame Sara’s leadership. In October 2019, the CCE published Challenging hateful extremism, which identified and argued a new category of extremist activity, described as “hateful extremism”.214 In February 2021, the CCE published Operating with Impunity Hateful extremism: The need for a legal framework, which evidenced how hateful extremists are able to operate lawfully under current legislation.

98. In 2020, Dame Sara Khan appointed Sir Mark Rowley, who at that point had retired from policing, to lead a legal review to examine whether existing legislation adequately deals with hateful extremism.215 The review provided a working definition for hateful extremism:

Activity or materials directed at an out-group who are perceived as a threat to an in-group motivated by or intending to advance a political, religious or racial supremacist ideology:

a. To create a climate conducive to hate crime, terrorism or other violence; or

b. Attempt to erode or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of our democratic society as protected under Article 17 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998.216

99. Dame Sara explained how hateful extremists are able to operate “lawfully, freely and with impunity”:

That is because the two areas of law that are most commonly associated with extremist activity is hate crime and terrorism. If you imagine three bubbles, you have hate crime, hateful extremism, and terrorism. There is a slight overlap between those things. So, for example, on the hate crime side Part III and Part 3A of the Public Order Act looks at stirring up hatred; for example, racial and religious hatred. Some of that is the behaviour of hateful extremists and some of it is broader.

On the terrorism side you have issues around the glorification of terrorism. Extremists are very clever in not being caught by terrorist legislation. What we showed, for example, is that in this country it is lawful to glorify terrorism if you do not engage in the encouragement of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. What does that mean in practice? That means that if somebody wanted to praise the actions of terrorists or glorify their ideology, whether it is Thomas Mair who murdered Jo Cox or the 9/11 hijackers or anybody else, they can do that in this country if it is not engaging in the commission, preparation of acts of terrorism. That is pretty shocking. I remember when Sir Mark discovered that how shocking he found that to be, having found himself on the other side of the policing line.217

We asked Dame Sara how this might apply to offensive placards seen at protests. She explained that it is legal “if you are simply glorifying the actions of terrorists”. She added that it is legal to incite racial hatred in this country, “as long as it not threatening, abusive or insulting”.

100. Dame Sara told us that “in the absence of a legal framework, we do not have an operational framework”.218 The Operating with Impunity review recommended that the Home Office “should commission a legal and operational framework to robustly counter the hateful extremist threat”.219 It also recommended that the Home Office should “expand current offences relating to stirring up hatred and strengthen current resources and capability of law enforcement agencies”.220

101. We asked whether the Home Office responded to her review.221 She told us she has not received a response to any of her reports, commenting:

In all honesty I have to say I find baffling. Even more so given that one of the key recommendations made to the Home Secretary in March this year by Sir John Saunders, who carried out the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings, was as a matter of urgency to consider and respond to the “Operating with Impunity” report. As far as I am aware, my reports are all sitting on a shelf gathering dust in the Home Office.222

102. AC Jukes told us that Dame Sara’s commentary on the “need for a wider policy, operational and legal response to extremism” was one he believed had real merit.223 He also highlighted the recommendation made by Sir John Saunders during his Manchester Arena Inquiry for the Home Office to consider and respond to Operating with Impunity as a matter of urgency, and also highlighted calls by HHJ Mark Lucraft as Chief Coroner to the Government, to consider further action on extremism.224

103. On the other hand, Robin Simcox, the current Lead Commissioner for Countering Extremism, suggested that the problem is how the law is being implemented. He added “I feel that we are hitting the limits of what we can expect legislation to do. I ultimately do not think we are going to legislate our way out of what I think is an increasingly profound crisis of extremism in this country”.225

Political violence and disruption

104. In 2020, Lord Walney, a crossbench peer was appointed the independent adviser for political violence and disruption. In 2021, he was asked by the then Prime Minister, Rt Hon Boris Johnson, to lead a review of the activity and prominence of political groups. The review was intended to seek views on the rise in prominence of far-right, far-left and other extreme single-issue political groups. On 12 December 2023, Lord Walney told us he had been about to submit his review, but owing to the events of October 7 2023 and the “immediate sweep of protests and the issues that have happened since”, he had been “rapidly reviewing with a view to resubmitting imminently”.226

105. Lord Walney told us the key question is “whether the current suite of powers is sufficient to provide the level of protection, in particular in this instance for the Jewish community in London and across the UK”.227 He said:

I am concerned that the legislation as it stands is unclear and untested on the issue of giving the police the powers that they could use to protect the Jewish community in particular in this instance from serious disruption. You have powers in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to allow the police to use the public order legislation to impose conditions on marches and even requesting banning them if there is sufficient disruption, but the way that it is drafted it is unclear whether that will be sufficient.228

He said that as the police have not tested those provisions, it provides a dilemma for lawmakers who are considering enhancing legislation. He added seeing the police test greater conditions “would immediately give us a better sense as to whether those conditions would be able to stand up in court”.229

106. On 22 December 2023, Lord Walney announced via X that he had sent his review to Home Office officials, ahead of it formally going to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary in January.230

Review of terrorism legislation in relation to protests

107. On 23 November 2023, Jonathan Hall, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, published a report on terrorism legislation and protests to inform public debate.231 We asked for his views on policing on protests. He said, quoting Sir Tom Winsor, “turning to policing of public demonstrations, this has been memorably described as the “brain surgery of policing””.232He told us:

A tension was apparent between those who argued that the law was sufficient, but was not properly enforced, and those who suggested that police were constrained by inadequate laws which needed changing [ … ] I thought the public (and Parliament, should it be asked to consider new legislation) would be best served by a detailed written report on the terrorism aspect of the law.233

He provided a legal analysis, for which his overall conclusion was that “there is no need to legislate for any amendments to terrorism legislation now, and good reason for caution”.234

108. We asked what impact changes to terrorism legislation would have on free expression and free assembly. He told us any expansion of these offences would restrict those current freedoms. In his report, he details why offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006 should not be adapted further.235 Looking at potential amendments to Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000, he explained that:

If section 11 (professing membership of a proscribed organisation) applied whether the person professing membership was intended to be taken seriously, it would penalise satire, irony and mere stupidity. In addition, members of the public talking (let alone, demonstrating) about current events would need to monitor their words carefully so that they were not seen (or accused, in good or bad faith) to be aligned with a proscribed organisation–even though there was no plausible basis to think that they were in fact members of such a group.236

He also said it would be undesirable to broaden terrorism liability in a protest situation as in his view it would result in terrorism prosecutions where there was no identifiable terrorist risk.237

109. We asked what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Operating with Impunity review. He noted that the definition for hateful extremism is a working definition, and said it used “imprecise language that could not possibly form the basis of a legal definition”, such as “out-group”.238 He also explained that the definition has implications on the rights and freedoms “as protected under Article 17 of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998”. He references work by his predecessor, Lord Anderson KC, who concluded that “just because extremism is a word does not mean it is a useful legal concept”. He said “any legal framework would need to demonstrate how, for example, civil banning measures would not simply end up criminalising legitimate speech by the backdoor”.239

110. We asked for his reflections on the impact the protests were having on communities in the UK. He noted that “many Jews in the UK have referred to feeling unsafe”, but said, “care needs to be taken about the word ‘unsafe’ when considering whether the [Public Order] 1986 Act is engaged in relation to threats or provocation of violence”. He said “If the Public Order Act 1986 was used to prevent all expressions that others strongly disagreed with it would profoundly damage freedom of expression and assembly.240 He also noted that “all the principal offences depend upon the physical presence of individuals who may be provoked to violence, or conversely put in fear or harassed or distressed”. He said:

It could be said that because Jews in the UK are likely to avoid areas where pro-Palestine marches are taking place, and are in any event unlikely to be provoked to violence, marchers can get away with conduct which–if Jews were more present, or more violent–would lead to arrests. But protestors might counter that Jews are not unsafe at marches, even if they disagree with them, and argue that the proposition that Jews are unable to go safely to the centre of cities during pro-Palestine marches has no basis in evidence. So far as objective safety is concerned, I think this is a reasonable point.241

111. We are seriously concerned about the rise in the number of reported hate crimes since 7 October 2023, as well as the further significant resource needed for the police to respond to them. It is unsatisfactory that the Government has not published its new plan for tackling hate crime since the previous action plan lapsed in 2020, especially as the former Minister for Safeguarding, Rachel Maclean MP, confirmed in 2022 the Government was planning to do so.

112. The Government must set out in its response to our report when it intends to publish an updated strategy for tackling hate crime.

113. The Government has commissioned reports to increase the evidence base in the complex areas of law where the right to freedom of speech intersects with the need for all communities to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. Having commissioned these reports using public money, we expect the Government to publish a response to demonstrate that it has taken account of that evidence. The failure to respond, as well as to other Government commissioned reports such as Sir Tom Winsor’s review on the departure of the previous Met Police Commissioner, demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that we are very concerned about.

114. We find it surprising that the Government has not yet responded to the reports it commissioned from the Commission for Countering Extremism regarding hateful extremism, particularly the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by Dame Sara Khan and Sir Mark Rowley. Sir John Saunders in his report in 2023 rightly said that the Home Office should respond as a matter of urgency. The Home Office must, without fail, publish its response to the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by no later than the end of April 2024.

115. We recognise the work completed by Lord Walney in his role as the independent adviser on political violence and disruption. Given that the review considers evidence relating to the ongoing protests, the Home Office should consider and publish its response to his report as a matter of priority, and respond to his review by no later than the end of May 2024.

Conclusions and recommendations

Policing during the King’s Coronation

1. There is a balance to be struck between the right of people to protest and the right of others to go about their everyday lives and to feel safe. The police should have the appropriate powers to safeguard the exercise of both these rights. The differing scale, nature and frequency of protests over recent years has led to increased scrutiny of the way in which the right to protest is exercised and policed. (Paragraph 22)

2. Disruptive tactics by protest organisers led to the Government enacting new legislation to provide the police with more powers, via the Public Order Act 2023. Some of these powers were used for the first time during the policing of the King’s Coronation, but the occasion was not necessarily a good test of the effectiveness of these new powers as it did not involve large-scale use of the kind of tactics the Act was intended to address. (Paragraph 23)

3. We recommend that the Government carries out post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023, to begin two years after it received Royal Assent. (Paragraph 24)

Israel-Gaza protests

4. Whilst we respect the right to protest, we are clear that no one, including elected representatives, their families, and their staff, should be made to feel unsafe by protest activity outside their home. Likewise, no one should be intimidated when they are coming and going from their place of work. AC Twist said: “Places of work seem to be a legitimate place to protest.” However, MPs have raised concerns about the impact on the staff who work in their offices, who are facing intimidation and violent attacks. We were pleased to hear the Met reiterate that in a democratic society elected representatives must be able to do their job in accordance with their consciences, and free from intimidation. (Paragraph 43)

5. We are aware that Lord Walney’s review, which will look at whether powers for enhanced protection for public spaces could be extended to offices of elected representatives, is with the Home Office. We look forward to a much more urgent response from the Government. (Paragraph 44)

6. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the right of people to protest and the right of people to go about their daily lives. We wholeheartedly support both these rights and recognise that finding the balance between competing rights can be challenging, particularly in terms of operational policing on the ground. In the context of the policing of recent Israel-Gaza protests, as with the policing of the King’s Coronation protests, we conclude that this balance was generally maintained, even if individual incidents inevitably tested that balance. Likewise, while the ongoing protests have tested the operational independence of the police, as have some of the communications around the protests, we conclude that it has ultimately been maintained. (Paragraph 66)

7. The repetitive nature of the recent large Israel-Gaza protests places considerable resource constraints on the police. This places additional pressure on the Met, which, having failed to meet the Uplift target, already struggles to meet the regular demands of policing London. The protests further drain police resource with more than 4,000 cancelled rest-days, and the same police officers being deployed week in, week out. We are concerned both about the effect on other aspects of policing, and about the human impact and the wellbeing of these police officers. With many officers regularly being deployed from outside of the Met, and should these protests continue indefinitely, it stands to reason that forces across the country will be less able to carry out the everyday neighbourhood and response policing that is so vital to the public. (Paragraph 67)

8. Should these protests continue week after week, the Home Office should consider amending requirements for protest organisers, such as increasing the notice period for protest organisers to inform the police from the current six days, to allow the police to prepare better. (Paragraph 68)

9. Following the policing priorities inquiry, we concluded that it was no longer sufficient for individual police forces to design their own workforce plans and recommended that the Home Office set out and implement a national workforce strategy that addresses officer and staff numbers and skills. The resource demands of the policing of recent protests demonstrate again that a wider national workforce plan is needed. (Paragraph 69)

10. We again recommend that the Home Office set out a workforce plan and strategy for policing over the next ten years as a matter of urgency. As previously set out, the plan should address officer and staff numbers and skills and particular attention should be placed on recognised areas of shortage. London has unique challenges in this respect, including the policing of protest, which should be taken into consideration. The plan should be subject to periodic review and impact analysis. (Paragraph 70)

11. In the absence of a national workforce plan and strategy, the Home Office and partners within policing must review the Strategic Policing Requirement and supporting documents, to ensure that public order requirements and operating models remain fit for purpose in the face of evolving approaches to protest. (Paragraph 71)

12. We recently called for an urgent review and update of the Police Allocation Formula, setting out points for future review in advance to facilitate effective planning by PCCs and forces. The Home Office must ensure that police funding recognises the true nature of demand upon the service and provides the resource it needs to meet them. (Paragraph 72)

Hate crime and terrorist offences

13. We are seriously concerned about the rise in the number of reported hate crimes since 7 October 2023, as well as the further significant resource needed for the police to respond to them. It is unsatisfactory that the Government has not published its new plan for tackling hate crime since the previous action plan lapsed in 2020, especially as the former Minister for Safeguarding, Rachel Maclean MP, confirmed in 2022 the Government was planning to do so. (Paragraph 111)

14. The Government must set out in its response to our report when it intends to publish an updated strategy for tackling hate crime. (Paragraph 112)

15. The Government has commissioned reports to increase the evidence base in the complex areas of law where the right to freedom of speech intersects with the need for all communities to feel safe as they go about their daily lives. Having commissioned these reports using public money, we expect the Government to publish a response to demonstrate that it has taken account of that evidence. The failure to respond, as well as to other Government commissioned reports such as Sir Tom Winsor’s review on the departure of the previous Met Police Commissioner, demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that we are very concerned about. (Paragraph 113)

16. We find it surprising that the Government has not yet responded to the reports it commissioned from the Commission for Countering Extremism regarding hateful extremism, particularly the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by Dame Sara Khan and Sir Mark Rowley. Sir John Saunders in his report in 2023 rightly said that the Home Office should respond as a matter of urgency. The Home Office must, without fail, publish its response to the report ‘Operating with Impunity’ by no later than the end of April 2024. (Paragraph 114)

17. We recognise the work completed by Lord Walney in his role as the independent adviser on political violence and disruption. Given that the review considers evidence relating to the ongoing protests, the Home Office should consider and publish its response to his report as a matter of priority, and respond to his review by no later than the end of May 2024. (Paragraph 115)

Formal minutes

Wednesday 21 February 2024

Members present:

Dame Diana Johnson, in the Chair

Lee Anderson

James Daly

Simon Fell

Carolyn Harris

Kim Johnson

Marco Longhi

Tim Loughton

Alison Thewliss

Policing of protest

Draft Report (Policing of protest) proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 115 agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 27 February at 2.00pm.

Witnesses

The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

Wednesday 6 December 2023

Chris Nineham, Vice Chair, Stop the War Coalition; Ben Jamal, Director, Palestinian Solidarity Campaign; Yasmine Adam, Head of Media & Politics Office, Muslim Association of BritainQ1–53

Dr Dave Rich, Director of Policy, Community Security Trust; Gideon Falter, Chief Executive, Campaign Against AntisemitismQ54–89

Tuesday 12 December 2023

Chief Constable Chris Haward, NPCC Lead for Race and Religion, National Gold for Operation Tarlac, and Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police, National Police Chiefs’ Council; Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, Assistant Commissioner, Met Operations, Metropolitan Police Service; Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, Assistant Commissioner, Specialist Operations, Metropolitan Police ServiceQ90–119

Robin Simcox, Commissioner for Countering Extremism, Commission for Countering Extremism; Dame Sara Khan, Former Lead Commissioner for Countering Extremism and Author of Operating with Impunity (2021); The Lord Walney, Independent adviser on political violence and disruption, House of LordsQ120–143

Wednesday 17 May 2023 (HC 1372)

Matt Twist, Temporary Assistant Commissioner, Met Operations, Metropolitan Police Service; Chief Constable Chris Noble, Protest Lead, National Police Chiefs’ CouncilQ1–63

Graham Smith, Chief Executive, Republic; Adam Wagner, Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers; Suzie Melvin, Night Stars Volunteer, Westminster City CouncilQ44–112

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.

PPR numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1 Campaign Against Antisemitism (PPR0002)

2 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

3 Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0004)

4 Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0001)

5 National Police Chiefs’ Council (PPR0005)

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.

Session 2023–24

Number

Title

Reference

1st

Human trafficking

HC 124

2nd

UK-Rwanda treaty: provision of an asylum partnership

HC 434

1st Special Report

Drugs: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2022–23

HC 127

2nd Special Report

Policing priorities: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of 2022–23

HC 470

3rd Special Report

UK-Rwanda treaty: provision of an asylum report: Government Response to the Committee’s second report

HC 499

4th special Report

Human Trafficking: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report

HC 566

Session 2022–23

Number

Title

Reference

1st

Channel crossings, migration and asylum

HC 199

2nd

Asylum and migration: Albania

HC 197

3rd

Drugs

HC 198

4th

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) draft Bill

HC 1359

5th

Policing Priorities

HC 635

1st Special Report

The Macpherson Report: twenty-two years on: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2021–22

HC 274

2nd Special Report

Spiking: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2021–22

HC 508

3rd Special Report

The investigation and prosecution of rape: Government Response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2021–22

HC 507

4th Special Report

Channel crossings, migration and asylum: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report

HC 706

5th Special Report

Asylum and migration: Albania: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report

HC 1818

Session 2021–22

Number

Title

Reference

1st

Violence and abuse towards retail workers

HC 141

2nd

The UK’s offer of visa and settlement routes for residents of Hong Kong

HC 191

3rd

The Macpherson Report: Twenty-two years on

HC 139

4th

Appointment of the Chair of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority

HC 814

5th

The Windrush Compensation Scheme

HC 204

6th

Police Conduct and Complaints

HC 140

7th

Appointment of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Fire & Rescue Authorities in England

HC 1071

8th

Investigation and prosecution of rape

HC 193

9th

Spiking

HC 967

1st Special Report

Violence and abuse towards retail workers: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report

HC 669

2nd Special Report

The UK’s offer of visa and settlement routes for residents of Hong Kong: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report

HC 682

3rd Special Report

The Windrush Compensation Scheme: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report

HC 1098

4th Special Report

Police conduct and complaints: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report

HC 1264

Session 2019–21

Number

Title

Reference

1st

Home Office preparedness for Covid-19 (Coronavirus): Policing

HC 232

2nd

Home Office preparedness for Covid-19 (Coronavirus): domestic abuse and risks of harm within the home

HC 321

3rd

Home Office preparedness for Covid-19 (coronavirus): immigration and visas

HC 362

4th

Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (Coronavirus): institutional accommodation

HC 562

5th

Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders

HC 563

6th

Appointment of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

HC 1024

1st Special Report

Serious Youth Violence: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixteenth Report of Session 2017–2019

HC 57

2nd Special Report

Home Office preparedness for Covid-19 (coronavirus): domestic abuse and risks of harm: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report

HC 661

3rd Special Report

Home Office preparedness for Covid-19: coronavirus: policing: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report

HC 660

4th Special Report

Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): immigration and visas: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report

HC 909

5th Special Report

Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): institutional accommodation: Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report

HC 973

6th Special Report

Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report

HC 974

Footnotes

1 UK Parliament, Policing of public protest, accessed 06 February 2024

2 This inquiry did not set out to look at the substantive issue regarding the conflict in the Middle East, but the policing of protests on this issue; UK Parliament, Policing of protests, accessed 06 February 2024

3 UK Parliament, Policing of protests, accessed 06 February 2024

4 Public Order Act 1986, Part 2,

5 Public Order Act 1986, Section 11

6 Public Order Act 1986, Section 11

7 Public Order Act 1986, Section 11

8 Public Order Act 1986, Section 11

9 Public Order Act 1986, Section 11

10 UK Government, Protests and marches: letting the police know, accessed 06 February 2024

11 Public Order Act 1986 ; Police Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2023; Public Order Act 2022

12 The Crown Prosecution Service, Offences during Protests, Demonstrations or Campaigns, accessed 06 February 2024

13 Public Order Act 1986, Section 12; Section 14

14 For conditions imposed on planned protests in advanced of them going ahead, the senior police officer is the chief constable. For conditions imposed on protests where people are gathering to take part in the protest or where the protest is already in the process of taking place, the senior police officer refers to the most senior officer on the scene at the time. Public Order Act 1986, Section 12

15 Public Order Act 1986, Section 12

16 Public Order Act 1986, Section 12

17 Public Order Act 1986, Section 12

18 3 The PCSC Act 2022 removed the legal test that required protestors to “knowingly” breach a condition for an offence to have been committed. The Government explained this was to prevent protesters from “exploiting” the way they are informed of protest conditions by the police to avoid sanctions for breaching them, e.g. by covering their ears or tearing up written notices of conditions and then claiming to not know what the conditions were to have knowingly breached them. Public Order Act 1986, Section 12

19 Public Order Act 1986, Section 13

20 Public Order Act 1986, Section 13

21 Public Order Act 1986, Section 14

22 Public Order Act 1986, Section 14

23 Public Order Act 1986, Section 14

24 As with section 13 orders that prohibit protest marches, the Met and City of London Police must apply directly to the Home Secretary to approve a section 14A order. Public Order Act 1986, Section 14

25 Public Order Act 1986, Section 14

26 Locking-on constitutes an individual “attaching” themselves on to another person, an object or to land; an individual attaching someone else to another person, object, or land; or an individual attaching an object to another object or land. Being equipped to lock on is where an individual is found to have an “object” with them that is intended to be used to lock-on, or is connected with the commission of the locking-on offence; Public Order Act 2023, Section 1, Section 2

27 House of Commons Library, Police powers: protests, accessed 06 February 2024

28 House of Commons Library, Police powers: protests, accessed 06 February 2024

29 House of Commons Library, Police powers: protests, accessed 06 February 2024

30 House of Commons Library, Police powers: protests, accessed 06 February 2024

31 National Police Chief’s Council, Protest Operational Advice Document Version 3.3 2022 (April 2022), p5

32 House of Commons Library, Criminal Justice Bill 2023–24, accessed 13 February 2024

33 UK Government, New protest laws on face coverings and pyrotechnics, 13 February 2024

34 UK Government, New protest laws on face coverings and pyrotechnics, 13 February 2024

35 UK Government, New protest laws on face coverings and pyrotechnics, 13 February 2024

36 Republic, About Republic, accessed 06 February 2024; Sky News, Anti-monarchy group to stage protest along Charles’ coronation route, accessed 06 February 2024

37 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q65

38 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q65

39 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q65

40 The Met issued a statement in which it said six members of Republic had been arrested, but Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, disputed this number and said eight members of Republic were arrested. Q64 (evidence taken May 2023); BBC News, Met expresses ‘regret’ over arresting six anti-monarchy protesters, accessed 06 February 2024

41 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q65

42 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q65

43 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q66

44 BBC News, Women’s safety volunteers arrested ahead of Coronation, 06 February 2024

45 UK Parliament, Policing of public protest, accessed 06 February 2024

46 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q69

47 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Qq95–97

48 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Qq95–97

49 UK Parliament, Policing of public protest, accessed 06 February 2024

50 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q2

51 The Independent, From rooftop snipers to undercover officers: How UK security forces are preparing for King’s coronation, accessed 06 February 2024

52 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q19

53 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q59

54 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q9

55 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Qq40–44

56 Financial Times, Met ‘regrets’ arresting anti-monarchy protesters during coronation, accessed 06 February 2024

57 Financial Times, Met ‘regrets’ arresting anti-monarchy protesters during coronation, accessed 06 February 2024; Evening Standard, Sir Mark Rowley defends Met officers who protected King’s historic Coronation, accessed 06 February 2024

58 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q47

59 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q46

60 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Q46

61 House of Commons Library, 2023/24 Israel-Hamas conflict: UK and international response, accessed 06 February 2024

62 The Times of Israel, Security cabinet confirms Israel at war, can undertake ‘significant military activities’, accessed 06 February 2024

63 The Times of Israel, Security cabinet confirms Israel at war, can undertake ‘significant military activities’, accessed 06 February 2024

64 The Guardian, Thousands attend protests and vigils in London over Israel-Hamas war, accessed 06 February 2024

65 For the purpose of this report, when discussing the Israel-Gaza protests, we are referring to those organised by one, a few or all of members of this coalition, aside from where we explicitly state on page X. LBC News, Palestine supporters set off fireworks outside Israeli embassy, as British Jews vigil for victims of Hamas attack, accessed 06 February 2024; Q96

66 LBC News, Palestine supporters set off fireworks outside Israeli embassy, as British Jews vigil for victims of Hamas attack, accessed 06 February 2024

67 LBC News, Palestine supporters set off fireworks outside Israeli embassy, as British Jews hold vigil for victims of Hamas attack, accessed 06 February 2024

68 Metropolitan Police, Statement following policing operation in central London, accessed 06 February 2024

69 Palestine Solidarity Campaign, March for Palestine, end the violence, end apartheid, accessed 06 February 2024

70 Metropolitan Police, https://news.met.police.uk/news/arrests-at-protest-in-central-london-473727, accessed 06 February 2024

71 Metropolitan Police, https://news.met.police.uk/news/arrests-at-protest-in-central-london-473727, accessed 06 February 2024

72 The Guardian, Pro-Palestine protests continue around UK for eighth weekend, accessed 06 February 2024

73 Q96

74 Metropolitan Police, Further arrests as officers investigate offences linked to Israel/Hamas conflict, accessed 06 February 2024

75 X, Metropolitan Police statement on X, accessed 06 February 2024

76 Q1

77 Q1

78 Q53

79 Q1

80 Q97

81 Q100

82 Q58

83 Q86

84 Q86

85 Q125

86 London Assembly, Agenda and minutes London Assembly (Plenary) on Thursday 2 November 2023, 10.00 am, accessed 06 February 2024

87 London Assembly, Agenda and minutes London Assembly (Plenary) on Thursday 2 November 2023, 10.00 am, accessed 06 February 2024

88 UK Government, Letter from the Prime Minister to Sir Mark Rowley 03/11/2023, accessed 06 February 2024

89 UK Government, Letter from the Prime Minister to Sir Mark Rowley 03/11/2023, accessed 06 February 2024

90 UK Government, Letter from the Prime Minister to Sir Mark Rowley 03/11/2023, accessed 06 February 2024

91 Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Statement regarding November 11 National March, accessed 06 February 2024

92 Metropolitan Police, “We ask you to urgently reconsider”, accessed 06 February 2024

93 Metropolitan Police, “We ask you to urgently reconsider”, accessed 06 February 2024

94 Metropolitan Police, “We ask you to urgently reconsider”, accessed 06 February 2024

95 Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Coalition statement in response to the Met Police and the November 11 march, accessed 06 February 2024

96 Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Coalition statement in response to the Met Police and the November 11 march, accessed 06 February 2024

97 Metropolitan Police, Met will do everything it can to prevent disruption to Remembrance events, accessed 06 February 2024

98 Metropolitan Police, Met will do everything it can to prevent disruption to Remembrance events, accessed 06 February 2024

99 Metropolitan Police, Met will do everything it can to prevent disruption to Remembrance events, accessed 06 February 2024

100 Metropolitan Police, Met will do everything it can to prevent disruption to Remembrance events, accessed 06 February 2024

101 The Times, Suella Braverman’s article: Police must be even-handed with protests, accessed 06 February 2024

102 BBC News, Pro-Palestinian protest draws 300,000 in London, as police make counter-protest arrests, accessed 06 February 2024

103 Metropolitan Police, AC Matt Twist statement on policing operation in central London, accessed 06 February 2024

104 Rishi Sunak on X: “Remembrance weekend is a time for us to come together as a nation and remember those who fought and died for our freedoms. The unacceptable scenes today disrespect their memory. https://t.co/vVyqSB7oi2” / X (twitter.com), accessed 06 February 2024

105 Qq103–105

106 Q2

107 Q3

108 Q103

109 Q104

110 Q104

111 Q104

112 Q104

113 Q104

114 Q63

115 Q63

116 Tommy Robinson is also known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon; ITV News, EDL founder Tommy Robinson escorted from anti-Semitism rally as thousands gather, accessed 06 February 2024

117 ITV News, EDL founder Tommy Robinson escorted from anti-Semitism rally as thousands gather, accessed 06 February 2024

118 Q63

119 Q63

120 Q64

121 Q105

122 Q94

123 Under amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2023–24, police will be given powers to arrest protesters who disregard their orders. Q105

124 Q99

125 Q99

126 Q1

127 Q73

128 Q73

129 Metropolitan Police - Met releases details of policing operation ahead of further protests, accessed 06 February 2024

130 Metropolitan Police - Met releases details of policing operation ahead of further protests, accessed 06 February 2024

131 Q1

132 Q7

133 Q85

134 Q112

135 Q113

136 Q113

137 Q98

138 Q100

139 Qq97–98

140 Q1

141 Q1

142 Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended by the PCSC Act 2022) allows conditions to be imposed on protest marches, whilst Section 14 (as amended by the PCSC Act 2022) provides the powers for imposing conditions on static protests; Q6

143 Campaign Against Antisemitism (PPR0002)

144 Q58

145 Q72

146 Q66

147 Qq72–86

148 Q143

149 Q143

150 Q6

151 Q1

152 Q1

153 Q1

154 Q100

155 Q95

156 Q95

157 Q95

158 Q97

159 Qq94–96

160 Operation Brocks is the Met’s response to the ongoing conflict in Israel and Gaza and its impact in London; Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0004)

161 Q96

162 Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0004)

163 Q97

164 Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0001)

165 UK Parliament, Policing priorities, accessed 06 February 2024

166 Home Affairs Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2023-24, Policing priorities: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of 2022–23, HC470

167 Hate crime | The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk)

168 The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Section 28; The Sentencing Act 2020, Section 66

169 Hate crime action plan 2016 to 2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

170 Hate crime action plan 2016 to 2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

171 Hate crime action plan 2016 to 2020 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

172 Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

173 Q94

174 Q96

175 Q96

176 Community Security Trust (CST) is a charity that protects British Jews from antisemitism and related threats. CST received charitable status in 1994 and is recognised by police and Government as a unique model of best practice; Community Security Trust, Report Antisemitic Behaviour, accessed 06 February 2024

177 Report Antisemitic Behaviour – CST – Protecting Our Jewish Community

178 Community Security Trust, Antisemitic incidents – 13 December update, accessed 06 February 2024

179 Community Security Trust, Antisemitic incidents – 13 December update, accessed 06 February 2024

180 Community Security Trust, Antisemitic incidents – 13 December update, accessed 06 February 2024

181 Campaign Against Antisemitism (PPR0002)

182 Tell MAMA, About Us, accessed 06 February 2024

183 Tell MAMA, About Us, accessed 06 February 2024

184 Tell MAMA specify that these figures are subject to further revision and analysis. Tell MAMA, Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 anti-Muslim cases between Oct 7 and Dec 13, accessed 06 February 2024

185 Tell MAMA, Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 anti-Muslim cases between Oct 7 and Dec 13, accessed 06 February 2024

186 Tell MAMA, Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 anti-Muslim cases between Oct 7 and Dec 13, accessed 06 February 2024

187 Tell MAMA, Tell MAMA recorded 1,432 anti-Muslim cases between Oct 7 and Dec 13, accessed 06 February 2024

188 Q133

189 Q133

190 Qq1–8

191 Q9

192 Q91

193 Q91

194 Q99

195 Q99

196 Q99

197 Q93

198 Q93

199 Q16

200 Q16

201 Oral evidence taken on 17 May 2023, HC1372, Qq18–19

202 Q85

203 Q125

204 Q97

205 Q97

206 The Guardian, Met chief defends force for not arresting chanters of ‘jihad’ at anti-Israel protest, accessed 06 February 2024

207 ITV News, Met chief suggests law needs tightening after lack of action on ‘Jihad’ chant video, accessed 06 February 2024

208 ITV News, Met chief suggests law needs tightening after lack of action on ‘Jihad’ chant video, accessed 06 February 2024

209 Q8

210 Qq8–22

211 Q81

212 Q81

213 Q57

214 Commission for Countering Extremism, Challenging hateful extremism, October 2019. The working definition for hateful extremism was amended in the 2021 report and is outlined in paragraph 98.

215 Sir Mark Rowley was formally in retirement at the time of leading this review. Commission for Countering Extremism, Operating with Impunity: Hateful Extremism, February 2021

216 Commission for Countering Extremism, Operating with Impunity: Hateful Extremism, February 2021

217 Q126

218 Q129

219 Commission for Countering Extremism, Operating with Impunity: Hateful Extremism, February 2021

220 Commission for Countering Extremism, Operating with Impunity: Hateful Extremism, February 2021

221 Q131

222 Q131

223 Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0001)

224 Metropolitan Police Service (PPR0001)

225 Q129

226 Q121

227 Q121

228 Q121

229 Q122

230 Lord Walney on X: “Pleased to send my completed review to government officials today ahead of it formally going to PM and Home Secretary next month. Includes additional review of protests in UK since October 7 massacre. 100,000 words and 40 recommendations to be published in new year … https://t.co/abpoavopsS” / X (twitter.com), accessed 06 February 2024

231 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

232 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

233 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

234 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Terrorism and Protests (November 2023), p1

235 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Terrorism and Protests (November 2023)

236 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

237 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

238 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

239 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

240 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)

241 Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (PPR0003)