The Metropolitan police have been using powers they no longer have to crack down on pro-Palestine protests, according to legal experts.
Based on evidence obtained by the Guardian and Liberty Investigates, legal experts said officers had imposed restrictions on at least two protests based on their “cumulative disruption” since their power to do so was quashed by the court of appeal in May.
The Home Office and the Met have insisted officers still have the power to take cumulative disruption into account when imposing restrictions on protests, despite all reference to it being removed from the relevant legislation. But several legal experts disagreed.
Raj Chada, a partner at Hodge, Jones & Allen and a leading criminal lawyer with expertise in human rights and protest, said: “There is no reference to cumulative disruption in the original [legislation]. 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.”
The Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) said the revelations showed the “ongoing crackdown on protest” had reached an “alarming point” whereby the Met allegedly appeared not to care if it was acting within the law.
Campaigns coordinator Kevin Blowe said: “The problem is zero police accountability and transparency in the use of their powers to restrict or limit protests.”
In October, the home secretary announced plans to reintroduce the power to consider cumulative impact in toughened form, through the crime and policing bill currently passing through parliament.
Nick Glynn, a retired senior officer who spent more than 30 years with Leicestershire police, said: “The police have too many protest powers already and they definitely don’t need any more. 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 added: “The right to protest is sacrosanct and more stifling of protest makes democracy worth less.”
Regulations to put curbs on protests if their “cumulative” impact met the threshold of causing “serious disruption to the life of the community” were quashed on 2 May 2025, after a legal challenge by the human rights group Liberty.
Documents obtained under freedom of information laws show that on 7 May, five days after the regulations were quashed, the Met police banned a Jewish pro-Palestine group from holding its weekly protest in Swiss Cottage, north London, citing the cumulative impact on the local Jewish community. Lawyers for the group, known as the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), say the ban has been renewed every week since then.
In November, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its march at three days’ notice, citing the cumulative impact on businesses during the Black Friday retail weekend. This happened even though the route had not been used for more than a year, according to the organisers.
Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, recalled being told by the deputy assistant commissioner Alison Heydari that her decision on whether to impose conditions, shifting the starting point by about half a mile, “will be purely around the cumulative effect of your protests”.
She reportedly said: “This is not just about Saturday’s protest but it’s a combination of all the impacts of all the processions so far,” referencing “serious disruption” to the business community.
“You’ve used this route in November 2024, and you’ve used it a few times before then as well,” she reportedly added. “So there is an impact.”
Jamal said the Met’s repeated imposition of conditions caused “immense disruption” and was a “demobiliser”, creating confusion over starting points which “had led to people being harassed” by officers who accused them of breaching protest conditions.
A Met spokesperson said: “The outcome of the judicial review does not prevent senior officers from considering the cumulative impact of protest on the life of 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.
“We recognise the importance of the right to protest. We also recognise our responsibility to use our powers to ensure that protest does not result in serious disorder or serious disruption. We use those powers lawfully and will continue to do so.”
The Home Office said “the discretion to consider cumulative disruption” was implied within the Public Order Act 1986 and that its forthcoming amendment would make it an “explicit requirement”.
