UK protest rights
and police powers.

How can public safety be protected while preserving meaningful opportunities for lawful dissent?

This overview introduces William Gomes’s parliamentary evidence on the relationship between public order, democratic participation and fundamental rights. The submission considers recent UK protest legislation through the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, privacy and protection from discrimination. The complete evidence remains on Parliament’s website.

What does the submission argue?

Gomes argues that a democratic society must accommodate a degree of peaceful disruption. In his analysis, inconvenience should be distinguished from intimidation, violence and sufficiently serious harm. Restrictions on protest require clear legal foundations and a justification that addresses necessity and proportionality in the circumstances.

The evidence examines how the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023 and aspects of the National Security Act 2023 expand the scope for intervention. It asks whether the cumulative effect of these measures shifts the emphasis from facilitating peaceful assembly towards preventing participation.

Why examine preventative orders and police discretion?

The submission considers Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, noise-based and disruption-based intervention powers, and restrictions near prohibited places. Gomes raises concerns about legal certainty, anticipatory restrictions and the possibility that people may be deterred from lawful political expression. He calls for rigorous judicial scrutiny and clearer distinctions between peaceful protest and harmful conduct.

How do facial recognition and surveillance affect protest rights?

Gomes examines surveillance, biometric identification and live facial recognition as questions of privacy and democratic participation. The evidence argues that identification at scale, data retention and profiling may discourage participation in peaceful protest. It calls for clear statutory frameworks, independent oversight, strict limits on deployment and retention, and meaningful equality safeguards.

What does William Gomes recommend?

• Clearer legal and operational safeguards: define intervention thresholds and apply necessity and proportionality in context.
• Stronger scrutiny of preventative restrictions: ensure Serious Disruption Prevention Orders receive rigorous judicial examination, including consideration of a conviction requirement.
• Independent oversight of surveillance: place biometric technologies within clear legal frameworks with limits on use and retention.
• Transparent protest-policing data: publish information on powers used, arrests, charges, outcomes, surveillance deployments and equality impacts.
• Review of cumulative effects: independently assess how recent legislative changes affect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and minority communities.

Read the evidence in its original context.

This page summarises the author’s submitted analysis and recommendations. Publication as written evidence does not imply endorsement by Parliament or the Committee. For the full argument, legal references and qualifications, consult the original SSP0006 evidence on Parliament’s website.

Related work: parliamentary evidence, academic works and research profiles, and human rights advocacy.