Protests - Potential offences during protests, demonstrations, or campaigns - Annex A

A person commits an offence if they:

• organise or carry on a one-person protest;
• fail to comply with a condition imposed by the police; and
• fail to comply with the condition, at the time they know or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

The offence came into force from 28 June 2022.

From 2 July 2023, the power to impose conditions was extended to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence police, in relation to specified places.

These offences are committed where:

• the person organises (subsection (4)), or takes part in (subsection (5)) a public procession;
• fails to comply with a condition; and
• knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

See subsections (1) and (2A) to (2E) for the grounds on which the police may impose conditions on a procession.

The criteria for serious disruption to the life of the community was amended by the PCSC Act 2022. From 28 June 2022, it includes where the procession may result in a significant delay to the supply of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product or a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or essential services, including those listed.

The criteria were further amended by SI, effective from 15 June 2023, to introduce the “more than minor” threshold (delay / disruption), aligning it with the definition of “serious disruption” in the POA 2023. The SI also made a number of other revisions, including: amending the list of examples which may constitute serious disruption to the life of the community, by adding physical disruption that prevents, or hinders to more than a minor degree, the carrying out of day-to-day activities, such as making a journey; and providing that when considering the serious disruption that may result, the police must take into account disruption that may occur regardless of whether the procession is held, including in particular normal traffic congestion, and may also take into account the cumulative disruption resulting from other processions or assemblies in the same area. 

Organiser – 6 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both

Participant – Level 4 fine

These offences are committed where the person:

• organises (subsection (4)), or takes part in (subsection (5)) a public assembly;
• fails to comply with a condition; and
• knows or ought to know that the condition has been imposed.

See:

• Subsections (1) and (2A) to (2E) – for the grounds on which the police may impose conditions on an assembly
• Section 12 above for revisions to the criteria for serious disruption to the life of the community, made by the PCSC Act 2022 (28 June 2022) and subsequently by SI (15 June 2023). These revisions were also made to section 14.

From 2 July 2023, the power to impose conditions was extended to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence police, in relation to specified places.

Organiser – 6 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both

Participant – Level 4 fine

These offences are committed where:

• the person organises (subsection (1)) or takes part in (subsection (2)), an assembly, the holding of which he knows is prohibited by an order under section 14A.

See

• Section 14A for the grounds on which the police may apply to the Secretary of State or the council for an order prohibiting for a specified period the holding of all trespassory assemblies in the relevant area. 

The offence applies to "land to which the public has no right of access or only a limited right of access". “Limited” is defined as follows: "in relation to a right of access by the public to land, means that their use of it is restricted to use for a particular purpose (as in the case of a highway or road) or is subject to other restrictions."

The offence could therefore apply to a trespassory assembly on a highway. As the public have a right to assemble on the highway to protest, a fact-sensitive assessment of proportionately would be required where the trespassory assembly took place on a highway: see DPP v Jones (Margaret) [2006] UKHL 16. However, if such an assembly occurred on a private road, or any land to which the public did not have a right to assemble (i.e., private land) to protest, then no fact-sensitive assessment would be required: see DPP v Cuciurean and the ECHR section above.

From 2 July 2023, the power to impose conditions was extended to the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence police, in relation to specified places. For the conditions that need to be met see subsections (4A-4C) (BTP) and (4G-4I) (MDP).

Organiser – 3 months’ imprisonment, a level 4 fine, or both.

Participant – Level 3 fine

All charging decisions in relation to alleged offending under s.9 POA 2023 must be referred to the DLS for approval.

The offence is committed where a person is within the safe access zone and does an act with the intent of, or being reckless as to whether it has the effect of:

1. influencing any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services,
2. obstructing or impeding any person accessing, providing, or facilitating the provision of abortion services, or
3. causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services.

There is no requirement that the suspect knows or believes that they are in a safe access zone.

There is no requirement that any person needs to be affected in any way i.e. influenced, obstructed or caused harassment, alarm or distress; but the person mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) must be within the safe access zone. 

Subsections (3) and (5) create a number of exceptions, such as for persons inside a dwelling or place of worship (where the person in (a), (b) or (c) is also in that or another dwelling / place of worship); and for persons providing abortion services or medical care or accompanying a person who is accessing or providing abortion services.

There is also an exception for the operation of a camera, if its coverage of persons accessing an abortion clinic is “incidental”. Therefore, the offence could be committed by taking a video or photograph of a person accessing abortion services, if done with the requisite intent or recklessness.

The statute does not provide a defence to those seeking to influence / obstruct/ cause harassment etc to people within safe access zones on religious or ethical grounds.

The Supreme Court judgment in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland - Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022] UKSC 32 considered a similar statutory provision in the NI Bill, in relation to the “influencing” limb of the offence.

In coming to its judgment, the court considered evidence of the types of activity by anti-abortion protesters and demonstrators that might impact a person accessing abortion services, and which were capable of falling within the scope of the statutory provision. These activities included not only violent offences such as spitting, threats, assaults and verbal abuse, but also a range of non-violent activities. These included:

• informing, advising, offering counselling, or attempting to persuade someone in relation to the use of abortion facilities;
• handing out leaflets with information or misinformation on abortions;
• holding bibles or foetal dolls;
• displaying images of foetuses or babies;
• singing around religious pictures;
• holding a vigil or praying, including silent prayer.

However, the Court acknowledged that there may arise factual questions of some delicacy as to whether particular conduct, in particular circumstances, answers the statutory descriptions [112]. Accordingly, a person who carries out any of these activities within a safe access zone will not necessarily commit a criminal offence. Prosecutors will need to consider not only all the facts and circumstances of the particular conduct but also the context in which the conduct takes place.

When reviewing cases, prosecutors should clearly identify:

• evidence that the suspect and the other relevant person were within the safe access zone;
• the overt act that gives rise to the offence (such as handing out leaflets or advising on abortion); and
• the evidence, which will invariably include the overt act, from which the requisite intent or recklessness can be inferred.

No

The Supreme Court judgment in Abortion Services considered a similar statutory provision in the NI Bill, which also had no defence of reasonable or lawful excuse.

It held that if the ingredients of the offence are established, then a conviction will not be a disproportionate interference with the defendant’s Convention rights under articles 9 to 11; there is no proportionality assessment required because either the defendant’s conduct will not engage articles 9 to 11, for example because it is violent, or, if rights under those articles are engaged, the proportionality balance is struck by the offence itself. [154-157]

This is committed where a person trespasses on land and it relates to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in, on that or adjoining land, which is intended by them to have the effect of:

• intimidating those persons or any of them, so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity;
• obstructing that activity; or
• disrupting that activity.

“Land” does not include a highway: evidence will be required to disprove any assertion that the road upon which the defendant protested was a highway.

There is no mens rea in respect of the trespass element of the offence: Director of Public Prosecutions v Bailey & Ors [2022] EWHC 3302 (Admin).

“Lawful activity”: There is no requirement for physical presence (as opposed to being “on” the land in the sense of having a right to possess, occupy or use the land) in the words of the offence: DPP v Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court [2022] EWHC 3207 (Admin): see the Case law section for further detail.

This is committed where a person attaches:

• themselves to another person, to an object or to land
• a person to another person, to an object or to land
• an object to another object or to land
• The act must cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling: see the section on “serious disruption” for the definition.
• The serious disruption element includes the mens rea of intent / recklessness.
• There is no definition of “attach”, so it could include protestors linking arms or legs.
• A protestor who glues themselves to the road may also commit this offence.

This offence is in force from 3 May 2023

Person has an object with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section 1(1) (offence of locking on).

Examples of the types of objects that protestors may use to lock-on are glue, bicycle locks, padlocks, handcuffs, chains, bamboo scaffolding, tripods, tubes, pipes and platforms and other rigging for tree sitting.

This offence is in force from 3 May 2023

Wilfully obstructs the free passage along the highway.

It does not matter whether free passage along the highway has already been temporarily restricted or temporarily prohibited, whether by a constable, a traffic authority or otherwise. So if the police temporarily close a road to manage a protest, it is still possible to commit the offence during this period.

Proof is required that the area upon which the protest has occurred is a highway – see Kotegaonakar v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2012] EWHC 1976 (Admin) (at [14] to [22]).

From 12 May 2022: 6 months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

Prior to 12 May 2022: Level 3 fine

This is committed by:

1. the obstruction of an undertaker or person acting under their authority, in relation to various construction or maintenance of any major transport works; or
2. interference with, movement or removal of apparatus belonging to specified persons (undertakers and those authorised by them), relating to construction or maintenance of any major transport works.

There is no definition of “obstructs” or “interference”.

There is no mens rea for the offence.

Subsection (6) defines “major transport works”. The definition is in two parts:

• (6)(a) Covers transport infrastructure authorised by an Act of Parliament, for example, the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 and the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Act 2021, which provide the legislative authority for the construction of the first and second phases of the HS2 project.
• (6)(b) relates to transport works the construction of which comprises development within subsection (7), that has been granted development consent by an order made under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 Act (the 2008 Act).

Subsection (7), explains what types of development are within subsection (6)(b):

1. Developments that are, or form part of a nationally significant infrastructure project within any of paragraphs (h) to (l) of section 14(1) of the 2008 Act, namely a highway-related development; an airport-related development; the construction or alteration of harbour facilities; the construction or alteration of a railway; or the construction or alteration of a rail freight interchange.
2. Developments that are, or form part of, a project (or proposed project) in the field of transport to which the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 35(1) of the 2008 Act, for example The new railway works between Bedford and Cambridge (East West Rail Company) – Planning Act 2008 direction.
3. Associated developments in relation to developments within paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

An undertaker is defined in subsection (8) and depends on whether the major transport works are within subsection (6)(a) or (b).

Yes
(a) reasonable excuse; and
(b) that the act in question was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. 

The trade dispute defence is intended to cover trade union protests and strike action.

Elements and evidence

It is an offence to:

• do an act that interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure, and
• intend to do so or be reckless as to this consequence.

“Interferes” is defined in subsections (4) and (5): if it prevents the infrastructure from being used or operated to any extent for any of its intended purposes, which include where its use or operation is significantly delayed.

Subsection (6) lists the key national infrastructure in scope of the offence, namely: road transport infrastructure; rail infrastructure; air transport infrastructure; harbour infrastructure; downstream oil infrastructure; downstream gas infrastructure; onshore oil and gas exploration and production infrastructure; onshore electricity generation infrastructure; and newspaper printing infrastructure.

Section 8 defines these terms. For instance, “road transport infrastructure” includes: (a) “a special road”, which includes all motorways, and (b) all A and B roads. 

Prosecutors should ensure that any infrastructure that is the subject of a charge comes within the relevant definition. 

This offence is in force from 3 May 2023.

This is committed where a person creates or participates in the creation of a tunnel.

The act must cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to 2 or more individuals or an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling: see the section on “serious disruption” for the definition.

The serious disruption element includes the mens rea of intent / recklessness.

“Tunnel” is defined at subsections (5) to (7), which excludes a tunnel in or under a dwelling.

Yes:

• S.3(3): reasonable excuse includes authorisation by a person with an interest in the land.
• A reasonable excuse may include, for example, legitimate roadworks.

This is committed where a person is present in a tunnel that was created for the purposes of, or in connection with, a protest.

Their presence must cause, or be capable of causing, serious disruption to 2 or more individuals or an organisation, in a place other than a dwelling: see the section on “serious disruption” for the definition.

The serious disruption element includes the mens rea of intent / recklessness.

“Tunnel” is defined at subsections (5) to (8), which excludes a tunnel in or under a dwelling.

Yes:

• S.4(3): reasonable excuse Includes authorisation by a person with an interest in the land.
•  
• A reasonable excuse may include, for example, legitimate roadworks.

This is committed by having an object in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of a tunnelling offence under ss3 or 4.

Although there is no requirement to prove that a s3 or s4 offence has occurred, proof of intention will be required in relation to all of the elements of one of these offences, including “serious disruption” and absence of reasonable excuse.

Examples of the types of objects that may apply are: pick-axes, drills, jackhammers, wheel barrows, augers, and equipment to conceal tunnelling activity, shore up a tunnel, or illuminate / ventilate a tunnel.

No:

• But because of the read across to the ss3 & 4 offences, the statutory defence will apply.

This is committed where a person does an act, or omits to do an act required by any enactment or rule of law, and the act or omission:

• creates a risk of, or causes, serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or
• obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and
• the person intends that their act or omission will have one of the above consequences, or is reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.

“Serious harm” means:

• death, personal injury, or disease
• loss of, or damage to, property, or
• serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience, or serious loss of amenity

Care should be taken in placing reliance on case law on the common law offence of Public Nuisance. In some circumstances it may still be relevant, such as where the courts have considered what amounts to an act or omission, or how widely spread the effect of a nuisance must be for it to qualify as a public nuisance. 

The offence applies to any relevant act or omission that occurs on or after 28 June 2022.

This is committed where a person:

• destroys or damages property belonging to another
• demonstrates intent or recklessness as to the destruction or damage.

See the Case law section for: further detail on ECHR proportionality assessments in criminal damage cases and the approach to take when the defence of prevention of crime is raised.  

This is committed where a person, at a designated football match, goes onto the playing area, or any area adjacent to the playing area to which spectators are not generally admitted.

There is no mens rea.

Prosecutors should consider alternative offences of Aggravated trespass or Locking-on, where appropriate.

A s.4 conviction will allow for the imposition of a football banning order (s.14A Football Spectators Act 1989), but offences of Aggravated trespass or Locking-on may not, unless the conduct in question includes acts of violence or damage, or threats of them.

See also Football related offences Sentencing Guidelines.

Elements and evidence

The police may direct a person to cease, or to not start doing, a prohibited activity in the controlled areas of Parliament Square or the Palace of Westminster, such as operating amplified noise equipment, erecting a tent, or obstructing the passage of a vehicle into or out of the Parliamentary Estate. 

It is an offence to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a direction from a constable or authorised person to cease, or not to start doing, a prohibited activity.

Yes

This is committed where a person:

• uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
• displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm, or distress

Offences can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house).

Mens rea:

• intends words etc to be threatening or abusive, or behaviour to be disorderly; or
• aware that the words etc. may be threatening or abusive, or behaviour may be disorderly

There is no requirement to cause a person harassment, alarm, or distress.

See the Case law section for further detail.  

This is committed where a person:

• uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
• displays to another any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm, or distress.

The offence can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house)

Mens rea:

• intent to cause a person harassment, alarm, or distress

Yes – There are two statutory defences, which include reasonable conduct.

This is committed where a person:

• uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
• distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

Offences can occur in a public or private place (but not when confined to a dwelling house).

There are two separate mens rea to be proved:

• s4(1): intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
• s6(3): intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting.

It is an offence to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene, or disgusting nature which outrages public decency.

The requirement for the behaviour to 'outrage' public decency was said by Lord Simon in Knuller (Publishing, Printing, and promotions) Ltd v DPP to: "go considerably beyond the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people".

If conduct falls within the scope of a statutory offence, such as exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is better practice to charge that offence unless, exceptionally, the offence merits a higher penalty than that available in relation to the statutory offence.

No

It is an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which the person knows or, ought to know, amounts to harassment of another.

Course of conduct is a fact-specific assessment. It requires behaviour on more than one occasion, but this need not be the same behaviour on each occasion. Behaviour which begins as a legitimate complaint or inquiry may turn into harassment if unreasonably prolonged or persistent.

Yes

There are three statutory defences, including that the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

Yes

This is a consequence of s. 1(3)(b) and (c), which both protect the right of free speech and expression: see Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd v Curtin [1997] 11 WLUK 528; and Bayer Crop Science Ltd [2009] EWHC 3289 (QB).

It is an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct which involves harassment of two or more persons and which the defendant knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons; by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do; or to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

See above for course of conduct.

Yes

This is a consequence of s. 1(3)(b) and (c), which both protect the right of free speech and expression: see Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd v Curtin [1997] 11 WLUK 528; and Bayer Crop Science Ltd [2009] EWHC 3289 (QB).

This is committed where a person (A) does a relevant act (criminal offence / tortious act causing B to suffer loss or damage), or threatens that they or someone else will do a relevant act with the intention of harming an animal research organisation, in circumstances in which that act, or threat, is intended or likely to cause a second person (B) to take any of the following steps:

• not to perform any contractual obligation owed by B to a third person (C)
• to terminate any contract B has with C
• not to enter into a contract with C

DPP consent required.

No reasonable excuse defence.

Defence of act done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

This is committed where a person (A) with the intention of causing a second person (B) to abstain from doing something which B is entitled to do (or to do something which B is entitled to abstain from doing), threatens B that A or somebody else will do a relevant act (criminal offence / tortious act causing B to suffer loss or damage), and does so wholly or mainly because B is a person falling within subsection (2).

Subsection (2) contains a list of persons connected with an animal research organisation, such as an employee, officer, customer, or supplier.

DPP consent required.

No reasonable excuse defence

Defence of act done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

The following offences may be applicable to protests: Aviation Security Act 1982

These offences could be committed on foot or with a vehicle.

It must be proved that notices stating that the area concerned was a security restricted area were posted, to be readily seen and read by persons entering the area.

With reference to:

• s21D - Unauthorised presence on board aircraft
• s21E - Offences relating to authorised persons

These are: s(1)(a) obstruction of an authorised person; and 2(1)(b) falsely pretending to be an authorised person.

s21C - Yes

s21D - Yes

s21E - No

s21C - Yes

s21D - Yes

s21E – No

s21C - Level 5 fine

s21D - Level 5 fine

s21E(1)(a) – 2 years’ imprisonment

s21E(1)(b) – Level 5 fine

Section 1 contains offences relating to endangering the safety of persons or the safe operation of an aerodrome.

AG consent required to prosecute.

R v Thacker [2021] EWCA Crim 97: the offence of Intentional disruption of service at an aerodrome under s1(2)(b) would only apply to those cases where the use of the “device, substance or weapon” was in itself intrinsically dangerous (here, scaffolding poles, “lock-ons” and builders’ foam did not come within the statutory wording). The prosecution also failed to establish a causal link between the use of the device and the disruption; and the defendants’ presence at the airport and the disruption to the services of the airport. Creation of a low risk to safety is not sufficient; here the defendants’ conduct did not endanger the safe operation of the airport.

Since Thacker, a number of new offences have been enacted, which, depending on the type and level of disruption or interference involved, may be appropriate to charge in a Thacker type scenario: offences of Locking-on and Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure under the POA 2023; and the offence of Causing public nuisance under the PCSCA 2022.