The Crime and Policing Act 2026: Further Sacrifice of Lawful Protest to Minimise Disruption

By: Georgie Lockwood

Georgie is a legal assistant and future trainee solicitor at Bhatt Murphy, with experience in civil liberties and social welfare law

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 (the CPA) is the latest in a series of Acts of Parliament threatening the rights to freedom of expression and assembly through ongoing extension of police powers in respect of public order. Parliament justifies the necessity of new legislation through reference to developing protest tactics. However, the primary concern should be limiting violent and intimidating behaviour as opposed to restricting peaceful protest, and a myriad of laws already exist for this purpose. New laws are reflective of growing government intolerance to protests, and show the measures they are willing to take to restrict even minor disruption.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026

The CPA includes a number of provisions relating to public order. Sections 157-159 allow the police to designate an area in which it becomes unlawful to use face coverings, to prevent concealment of identity where they believe criminal activity is likely to take place. Under section 161, climbing on specified statues and war memorials becomes a criminal offence, punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment. Section 164 has furnished police with stronger powers to prevent protests outside places of worship, and section 165 allows police to impose conditions on or prohibit protests if there has been “cumulative disruption” from repeat protests in a particular vicinity.

The government has cited the growing number of “peaceful but disruptive” protests as inspiring this stringent new legislation, with claims that increasingly distressing and alarming measures are used by activists^[1]. Intimidation outside places of worship combined with a rise in antisemitic and Islamaphobic attacks provides motivation for section 164 in particular^[2]. Protest law is under constant review, with new regulations attempting to address gaps as identified by law enforcement, of which the CPA is the latest example^[3].

Though many issues have been raised in response, a primary concern cited by human rights organisations relates to the uncertainty surrounding a number of these clauses. Considering section 164: this section allows police to limit protest “in the vicinity of” a place of worship, whilst leaving “vicinity” undefined^[4]. Though people should be free to access their place of worship without fear of intimidation, existing criminal law frameworks are sufficient to manage this^[5]. Anxieties arise when considering how these undefined restrictions on the location of protests may look in practice, especially in areas heavily populated by places of worship^[6]. Large areas of major cities could effectively become protest free zones.

Additionally, the “cumulative disruption” clause has triggered objections. Police can prevent repeat protests occurring in the same area regardless of whether the participants or campaigns are the same. In practice, this may look like prohibition on a protest related to the climate crisis where an animal rights march has taken place the week before. Religious leaders and human rights organisations alike have expressed their concern, arguing this provision is too broad, and that outcomes will be particularly dependent on individual police discretion, leading to potentially discriminatory implementation^[7].

The Wider Context

Viewing this new legislation in the context of increasing police powers paints a worrying picture. The CPA is one of many pieces of public order legislation passed within the last few years^[8]. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 criminalised one-person protests and imposed noise restrictions, and was followed shortly by the Public Order Act 2023 which created new specific offences of tunnelling and locking on, carrying equipment to facilitate these acts, and obstructing major transport works. This onslaught of new legislation has led to confusion within the police, with research by Human Rights Watch showing misapplication of guidance has led to the issuing of conflicting advice and unlawful arrests^[9].

Uncertainty is a threat to human rights as it leads to incorrect execution of laws and arbitrary policing. Actions of public bodies which restrict the freedom of citizens must have legal justification. Where laws aren’t clear, discretion is conferred upon individual officers who apply these how they see fit, which can lead to discriminatory policing if biases are at play. People of the global majority are more likely to be victims of poor policing, and will be most negatively impacted by the smorgasbord of new legislation. Rather than addressing substandard application of existing laws, the government has chosen to throw even more tools in the arsenal of the police in the hope that something sticks.

New legislation deters participation in protest, undermines trust in law enforcement and has turned the government into a coercive regulator^[10]. The CPA confers further discretion on police,

threatens to restrict lawful protest and lead to discriminatory application. Fundamentally, disruptive protest is a cornerstone of democracy. Rather than suppressing such actions, the government should accommodate them and focus their efforts on addressing the concerns of the public.

Sources 

^[1] William Downs, ‘Police powers: Protests’ (1 July 2026) <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05013/> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[2] Harriet Sherwood, ‘Police to block ‘intimidating’ protests near places of worship, says Home Office’ (27 March 2025) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/27/police-to-block-intimidating-protests-near-places-of-worship-says-home-office> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[3] Home Office / Ministry of Justice, ‘Crime and Policing Act 2026: public order offences factsheet’ (19 May 2026) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-act-2026-factsheets/crime-and-policing-act-2026-public-order-offences-factsheet> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[4] Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Lords warned Crime and Policing Bill must not restrict right to peaceful protest’ (14 January 2026) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/news/lords-warned-crime-and-policing-bill-must-not-restrict-right-peaceful-protest> Accessed 28 July 2026. 

^[5] Human Rights Watch, ‘Silencing the Streets: The Right to Protest Under Attack in the United Kingdom’ (7 January 2026) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2026/01/08/silencing-the-streets/the-right-to-protest-under-attack-in-the-united-kingdom> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[6] Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Lords warned Crime and Policing Bill must not restrict right to peaceful protest’ (14 January 2026) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/news/lords-warned-crime-and-policing-bill-must-not-restrict-right-peaceful-protest> Accessed 28 July 2026.  

^[7] Various, ‘Faith and belief leaders’ letter on Crime and Policing Bill’ (March – April 2026) <https://www.quaker.org.uk/documents/faith-and-belief-leaders-letter-crime-policing-bill-april-2026> Accessed 28 July 2026. ; Justice, ‘Striking the Balance: Protest Rights and Public Order’ (January 2026) <https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/67becde70dae19a9e5ea2bc3/696d576ab20167a705505283_Striking%20The%20Balance.pdf> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[8] Amnesty International, ‘UK: Alarming Crime and Policing Bill yet another assault on the right to peacefully protest’ (10 March 2025) <https://www.amnesty.org.uk/latest/uk-alarming-crime-and-policing-bill-yet-another-assault-right-peacefully-protest/> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[9] Human Rights Watch, ‘Silencing the Streets: The Right to Protest Under Attack in the United Kingdom’ (7 January 2026) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2026/01/08/silencing-the-streets/the-right-to-protest-under-attack-in-the-united-kingdom> Accessed 28 July 2026.

^[10] Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order)’ (16 June 2021) https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6367/documents/69842/default/> Accessed 28 July 2026.