CAMPAIGNERS celebrated a ”huge victory for democracy” today after the Court of Appeal ruled key anti-protest legislation was forced through unlawfully.

The Home Office had appealed a High Court ruling that struck down laws brought in by the previous Tory government in 2023.

The measures expanded police powers to interfere with protests, lowering the threshold from what is considered “serious disruption” to community life, from “significant” and “prolonged” to “more than minor.”

Civil rights group Liberty challenged the law change, arguing that the measures had been voted down months earlier and that then home secretary Suella Braverman had used secondary legislation, which requires far less parliamentary scrutiny, to implement them.

Ms Braverman used so-called “Henry VIII powers” to introduce the laws by clarifying the definition of “serious disruption” under the Public Order Act 1986.

Liberty argued that the broad redefinition of “serious disruption” effectively granted the police “almost unlimited powers to impose conditions on protests.”

The High Court ruled it unlawful last May, but the previous government initiated an appeal, which was continued by Labour after it came to power.

Upholding the ruling today, Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lord Justice Edis said that ”the term ’serious’ inherently connotes a high threshold … [and] cannot reasonably encompass anything that is merely ‘more than minor’.”

Liberty’s director Akiko Hart described the ruling as a “huge victory for democracy” and called the laws a “flagrant abuse of power from a government determined to shut down protesters they did not personally agree with.”

“Five different judges over two separate hearings have now ruled that ‘serious’ simply cannot mean ‘more than minor’,” she said.

”It’s therefore even more surprising that the current government chose to continue the appeal into this case and argue that wasn’t the case. 

“As a result, even more people have been needlessly funnelled into the criminal system over the past 12 months through a law that should never have existed in the first place.”

Liberty has called on the government to review every arrest made under the legislation.

Shameem Ahmad, CEO of the Public Law Project (PLP) which intervened in the case, said: “PLP believes the public deserves better than backdoor law-making that allows their fundamental rights to be diminished by ministerial decree. 

“These restrictive protest laws should now be permanently abandoned and Henry VIII powers relegated to the annals of history where they belong.”

Greenpeace UK’s co-executive director Areeba Hamid said: “Instead of building on her predecessor’s toxic legacy, [Home Secretary] Yvette Cooper should stand up for our democratic rights and revoke anti-protest laws immediately.

“Her first step should be to remove the draconian new protest clauses in the Crime and Policing Bill currently going through Parliament.”

Among the clauses in the Bill is a proposed ban on face coverings during protests, which Liberty argues would make it unsafe for some disabled people and political dissidents. Covered up protesters could be landed with a £1,000 fine and a month in prison.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The court has ruled that specific regulations made by the previous government were unlawful, however the central powers currently used by policing to manage protests and ensure that they remain peaceful are not affected by this judgement. 

“We will ensure that the police and the public have clarity on existing powers to manage protests that cause serious disruption, including where that disruption is cumulative [a reference to claims the sustained character of the movement for peace in Palestine over many months is problematic] and undertake further work where required.”

The court will decide in the next weeks if the legislation will be scrapped altogether.