UK police forces are facing significant criticism for employing protest powers that were officially invalidated months ago, in what campaigners describe as an escalating crackdown on pro-Palestine demonstrations.
Legal Vacuum: The Quashed 'Cumulative Disruption' Rule
Lawyers and monitoring groups have issued a stark warning, arguing that authorities are relying on an outdated legal framework. The specific concept of "cumulative disruption" was introduced through regulations that were successfully challenged and quashed by a judicial review in May 2025.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer specialising in human rights, stated unequivocally that the police approach lacks a legal foundation. "There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original legislation," he said. "The regulations that introduced this concept were quashed in May 2025, so I fail to see how this can still be the approach taken by police. There is no legal basis for this whatsoever."
A Broader Crackdown and Calls for Accountability
The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) contends this revelation points to a wider, alarming trend of suppressing dissent. The group's campaigns coordinator, Kevin Blowe, identified a core issue: "zero police accountability and transparency in the use of their powers to restrict or limit protests."
This sentiment is echoed by voices within policing itself. Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer with over 30 years of service at Leicestershire Police, expressed concern over the expansion of police authority. "The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don't need any more," Glynn asserted. "If they are provided with them they not only use them [but] as in this case, they stretch them. They go beyond what was intended." He emphasised that "the right to protest is sacrosanct" and that its suppression diminishes democracy.
Police Defence and the Ongoing Tension
In response to these allegations, a Metropolitan Police spokesperson offered a different interpretation to The Guardian. They argued that the outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the wider impact of repeated protests on communities.
"To determine the extent of disruption that may result from a particular protest, it is of course important to consider the circumstances in which that protest is to be held, including any existing disruption an affected community is already experiencing," the spokesperson said. The force stated it recognises the importance of the right to protest but also its duty to prevent serious disorder or disruption, insisting it uses its powers lawfully.
This dispute highlights the ongoing and tense balancing act in the UK between the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and the police's mandate to maintain order, with the legality of their current methods now under intense scrutiny.
