Weekly Human Rights News: 09/05/2025

Every month, we share more in-depth updates on our work and on human rights topics from across the UK in our eNewsletter. On Monday 5^th May, we sent out our latest edition, which was all about the rule of law, explaining what it is, why it matters and how it relates to human rights. We shared a variety of resources on the rule of law and human rights, including explainers, videos and guest blogs.

Saturday 3^rd May was the United Nations’ World Press Freedom Day – an annual event focused on the fundamental principles of press freedom and the role the press plays in seeking and sharing information. The theme for 2025 was the impact of artificial intelligence on press freedom and the media. To mark the day, we shared a guest blog on our social media written by National Union of Journalist members Chris and Natasha. They created the blog in April 2022 in light of the then-government’s plans to scrap the Human Rights Act (which have fortunately since been halted). They discussed why the Human Rights Act is important to them as journalists and how it strengthens the right to free speech.

The Court of Appeal said that the former government made anti-protest rules unlawfully

The Public Order Act says that police have extra powers to interfere with protests that they believe may cause “serious disruption” to the community. In 2023, when changes to the Act were being debated in Parliament, the then-government tried to introduce a section that said “serious disruption” meant “more than minor”. The House of Lords rejected this addition, saying that they were concerned this definition set the threshold too low and might have too big an impact on people’s human rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

However, Section 73(4) the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act does give the Home Secretary the power to make regulations (rules) that define “serious disruption”.  Regulations are a type of secondary legislation – meaning they can be passed by Government Ministers without Parliament getting to vote on them.

Later in 2023, the Home Secretary used this power to make regulations that said “serious disruption” in the Public Order Act means “more than minor”. This meant she introduced the same change that the House of Lords had originally voted against.

Human rights charity Liberty challenged this in court, saying the Home Secretary was going beyond her powers. They said that by her regulations didn’t just define “serious disruption” but changed it as it lowered the threshold for police intervention.

In May 2024, the High Court found in Liberty’s favour and said the Home Secretary had made the regulations unlawfully. It said the regulations should be quashed, so they stop being law. The then-Home Secretary appealed the Court’s decision and so the quashing order was put on hold. When the UK Government changed, the current Home Secretary decided to continue with the appeal. However, on 2^nd May 2025, the Court of Appeal said the High Court was right and the regulations were made unlawfully.

The Court of Appeal has not yet said what should happen next and whether the quashing order should go ahead. It is expected to announce this in the coming weeks.

Read the judgment