There has been more and more debate about the use of UK protest arrest powers in the last few years, especially in London. There have been a lot more arrests for crimes like conspiracy to make a public disturbance, but the number of prosecutions is still very low. In the last five years, less than 3% of people who were detained for this crime have been prosecuted. Legal experts, campaigners, and civil rights groups are quite worried by this big gap. Are police utilising these powers to keep the peace or to stop people from speaking out against the law?

Why are more people getting arrested during protests in the UK?

From 2012 to 2018, police only arrested 67 people for conspiring to provoke a public nuisance. But in 2019, that number shot up to 205. This upsurge happened at the same time as a rise in environmental protests from groups like Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion. More than 600 people have been arrested for this crime since 2019, yet just 18 of those cases led to charges. The Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act 2022 made the crime a law. It is now one of the most serious crimes associated with protests and can result in a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail. Many people, on the other hand, say that its use has strayed far from its intended goal.

Critics believe that these capabilities are being used before something bad happens instead of making sure that people are held accountable for their actions. In other words, people may be arrested not because they did something wrong, but because they might. This method goes against the idea that someone is “innocent until proven guilty.”

What Makes Conspiracy to Cause Public Nuisance So Strong?

Conspiracy to cause a public nuisance gives law enforcement more power than smaller crimes like blocking the road. If someone is arrested for this crime, the police can hold them in pretrial custody, take their DNA, fingerprints, and pictures, and set harsh bail terms. Some of these limitations may include not letting people go back to central protest areas, like portions of London. Even if no charges are brought, people’s lives can be greatly affected.

For campaigners, the effects can be very disruptive. Many people have said that they have had to deal with months of limitations and repeated legal procedures, yet they have never been legally charged with a crime. People have accused the UK of using these measures as a deterrence, not only as a way to get justice. Protesters are also worried that their biometric data, which was taken during these arrests, will be kept forever, even if they are not found guilty. Read another article on Unlawful Arrest Over Royal Protest

What do lawyers and campaigners have to say?

Raj Chada, a well-known protest defence lawyer in the UK, says that police methods have changed. Before 2019, demonstrators were usually arrested for less serious crimes, such as blocking traffic. These had very few punishments and gave the police very little power. But as the protests got bigger and more visible, so did the police response. Chada says that the crime of conspiracy to provoke a public nuisance gives police more legal options. This includes the power to set bail conditions, hold people in jail for longer periods of time, and collect private information.

Civil liberties activists agree with these worries and say that the UK has given police more ability to arrest protesters in a way that puts control ahead of fairness. Many people think that making charges bigger lets the police take phones, search houses, and do intrusive surveillance—things that are usually only allowed for more serious crimes. They say that this trend makes peaceful protest a risky legal activity and threatens the right to disagree in a democracy.

Are the police right to use these powers?

The Metropolitan Police say they did the right thing by pointing out the difference in the thresholds for arrest and prosecution. They say that a police officer simply needs reasonable suspicion to arrest someone, but prosecutors have to show that there is enough evidence to predict a conviction. Police said that demonstrating conspiracy is very hard and needs a higher level of proof than most public order crimes. Officers stress that they have to intervene quickly when a protest becomes illegal or disruptive.

People are still quite worried, even after this explanation. Critics say that even if reasonable suspicion may be enough to make a brief arrest, a pattern of repeated arrests without prosecution is impossible to overlook. It’s hard to regard these arrests as just mistakes when 97% of them don’t end up with charges. Instead, a lot of people say that the system itself makes people go too far and makes them afraid of the legal penalties of protesting.

What has changed since 2022?

The decision to make conspiracy to produce a public nuisance a crime in 2022 was meant to make prosecutions more consistent. In principle, making the crime plain in law should have made the justice system work better. And in the year it passed, there were several high-profile convictions, the most famous of which was the sentencing of four Just Stop Oil activists to up to five years in prison.

But the tendency has stopped since then. There have been no more charges filed under the new law since those first few cases. Even though arrests keep happening, prosecutions are still rare. This discrepancy shows that even though the legislation has changed, it may still be enforced by tactics of disruption and containment instead of prosecution based on evidence. For a lot of people, this makes them worry more about how the UK’s powers to arrest protesters are actually working.

What effect does this have on civil liberties in the UK?

Democracy is based on the right to free speech and peaceful protest. It should not be against the law to challenge government policy, fight for justice, or call for immediate action on climate change. But using arrest powers related to protests a lot without following through makes it harder for people to be active. People who are protesting, especially those in high-profile movements, are becoming more cautious about going to protests because they are afraid of being arrested, watched, or getting into legal trouble for a long time.

This culture of deterrence sends a bad message. When speaking out means losing your privacy, being kept out of particular places, or going to court hearings where you might not be prosecuted, fewer individuals are inclined to speak out against the government. Using UK protest arrest powers like this may be making people less likely to get involved in their communities, which is what keeps a democracy alive and responsive.

How can balance be restored?

A lot of professionals and Rodan, and civil society groups think that change is needed. Stronger scrutiny of arrests made during protests would help make sure that these powers are only used when required. Clearer legal rules could assist police in telling the difference between a lawful protest and a real criminal threat. If the results of arrests were made public, people would also be able to check if the law is being followed correctly or not.

Also, regular audits and evaluations of police work could help find misuse and stop systemic overreach. These changes are not meant to make law enforcement weaker; they are meant to make the rule of law stronger. Any legal system that is democratic should be based on the idea that safety and freedom should be protected.

In conclusion, a call for responsibility

The growing use of UK protest arrest powers without equivalent prosecutions shows a major imbalance. It is important to keep the peace, but it should never come at the expense of civil rights. Taking people’s information, arresting them, and putting limitations on them without charging them hurts public faith and the integrity of democracy.

The UK has to look into how these authorities are used to protect both freedom and justice. They should serve the people, not suppress them.