The UK government has launched an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, appointing former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC to lead the assessment.
The review, announced following the Manchester attack of October 2, 2025, will examine whether current laws adequately protect communities from hate and violence while preserving fundamental rights to protest and free expression.
The review is expected to conclude by February 2026 and will be supported by policing expert Owen Weatherill.
Why This Review Matters
The announcement comes at a moment of heightened tension over how Britain balances competing values. Recent years have seen increased public anxiety about:
- Rising hate crime reports across multiple communities
- Disruptive protest tactics that divide public opinion
- Questions about police powers and their proportionate use
- Community tensions following terror incidents and social unrest
Different groups view these challenges through fundamentally different lenses, making this review particularly complex.
What Will Be Examined
Scope of the Review:
- Public order powers and their application to protests
- Hate crime legislation, including aggravated offences and incitement laws
- Police authority to manage demonstrations
- Protection of communities from intimidation and harassment
- Safeguards for lawful protest and free expression
The review follows recent changes in the Crime and Policing Bill requiring officers to consider the broader impact of demonstrations when setting conditions.
The Case for Reform: Safety and Protection
Government Position
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood emphasized the need for laws that protect communities while preserving democratic freedoms:
“The terrorist attack in Manchester on 2 October shocked the nation and showed how hatred and division can fuel violence. Our laws must protect the public, while upholding the right to protest and free speech. Lawful protest and free speech are fundamental rights, but we cannot allow them to be abused to spread hate or cause disorder.”
Community Groups Seeking Protection
Many communities report feeling vulnerable and underprotected under current laws:
Jewish community organizations have raised concerns about antisemitic incidents at protests, with some members reporting intimidation when traveling through areas where demonstrations occur. Community Security Trust data shows sustained high levels of antisemitic incidents.
Muslim communities have similarly expressed concern about Islamophobic hate crime, particularly following terror incidents when some community members face collective blame or harassment.
LGBTQ+ organizations point to rising reports of hate-motivated harassment and violence, questioning whether current laws provide adequate deterrence or protection.
Victims’ advocates argue that existing hate crime laws sometimes fail to capture the cumulative impact of repeated low-level harassment that can devastate individuals and communities.
Policing Perspective
Senior police officers have indicated that managing modern protests presents operational challenges. Large-scale demonstrations require significant resources, and officers sometimes face difficult decisions about when intervention is necessary versus when it risks escalating tensions.
Some policing bodies have called for clearer legal frameworks to help officers make consistent decisions under pressure, particularly when protests involve tactics that disrupt major infrastructure or essential services.
The Case for Restraint: Freedom and Rights
Civil Liberties Organizations
Human rights groups have expressed serious concerns about expanding state powers:
Amnesty International UK (Tom Southerden, Law and Human Rights Director) warned:
“Is the government genuinely suggesting that individuals protesting its decisions should only be allowed to do so a limited number of times? If so, it is an outrageous proposal… This government will always discover another means to restrict this fundamental human right.”
Liberty argued that additional powers are unnecessary:
“Police already possess extensive powers to limit protests, and granting them more would further undermine our rights while failing to ensure safety from violence… The ability to protest against government actions and advocate for our beliefs is fundamental to our democracy and must be preserved.”
Defend Our Juries sees this as part of a dangerous pattern:
“This confirms what we’ve warned all along: the proscription of Palestine Action was never just about one group – it’s a dangerous, authoritarian escalation that threatens everyone’s right to protest in our country.”
Protest Movement Perspectives
Climate activists argue that disruptive protest has historically been essential to social change, from suffragettes to civil rights movements. They contend that inconvenience to the public, while regrettable, is sometimes necessary to draw attention to existential threats that conventional politics has failed to address.
Pro-Palestinian solidarity groups maintain that their protests are lawful expressions of opposition to government policy, and that efforts to restrict them represent an attempt to silence legitimate political dissent on foreign policy issues.
Legal Scholars’ Cautions
Independent legal experts have noted that:
- The UK already has substantial public order legislation compared to many democracies
- Vague or overly broad laws risk chilling legitimate speech and protest
- Hate crime laws must be carefully drafted to avoid criminalizing offensive but non-threatening expression
- There’s limited evidence that more laws solve underlying social tensions
The Conservative Opposition View
The Conservative Party, now in opposition, has positioned itself as supporting stronger measures while critiquing what it sees as constraints from European human rights frameworks.
Party leader Kemi Badenoch stated at the October 2025 Conservative Party Conference:
“We must leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. The next Conservative manifesto will contain our commitment to leave. Leaving the Convention is a necessary step.”
The party argues that:
- Current ECHR obligations prevent effective responses to disruptive protests
- Judicial intervention has resulted in inadequate sentencing and restrictions on public order enforcement
- A new domestic Bill of Rights is needed, designed without ECHR-style interpretations
- Stronger measures are necessary to “keep the public safe” and restore confidence in the justice system
Conservative legal reviews recommend early passage of laws covering border controls, veterans’ protections, and enhanced public order powers if the party returns to government.
Seeking Middle Ground: Alternative Approaches
Some voices are calling for solutions that don’t simply expand or restrict powers, but reimagine the approach:
Restorative justice advocates suggest that some hate crime cases might be better addressed through dialogue and accountability processes rather than purely punitive measures, particularly for first-time or lower-level offences.
Community mediation organizations argue that investment in local conflict resolution could reduce tensions before they escalate to the point where legal intervention becomes necessary.
Policing reform groups propose that better training, clearer guidance, and improved community relationships might be more effective than new laws, allowing officers to de-escalate situations using existing powers.
Free speech advocates across the spectrum note that robust public debate, even when uncomfortable, often serves as a pressure valve that prevents more serious social ruptures.
The Complexity of “Balance”
The challenge facing Lord Macdonald’s review is that different communities experience these issues in fundamentally different ways:
For some: The primary concern is safety from hate-motivated violence and harassment. They see protest restrictions and stronger hate crime laws as protective measures that allow them to live without fear.
For others: The primary concern is state overreach and the erosion of democratic freedoms. They see expanded police powers and hate crime laws as tools that will inevitably be used to silence dissent and minority viewpoints.
For many: Both concerns feel valid simultaneously. They want protection from genuine threats while worrying about how new powers might be applied.
This is not a simple equation where one side is right and the other wrong. It’s a genuine tension between legitimate values in a diverse democracy.
What Happens Next
The review’s terms of reference will be finalized in coming weeks, with Lord Macdonald expected to begin work shortly. The timeline calls for completion by February 2026.
Public consultation is likely, providing opportunities for:
- Community groups to share experiences of hate crime and harassment
- Civil liberties organizations to present concerns about rights erosion
- Policing bodies to discuss operational realities
- Legal experts to offer technical analysis
- Ordinary citizens to contribute their perspectives
The findings will inform potential legislative changes affecting how Britain manages the intersection of public safety, free expression, and social cohesion in an increasingly polarized era.
Questions for Consideration
As this review proceeds, citizens might consider:
- How do we protect vulnerable communities from hate without creating tools that could suppress legitimate dissent?
- What role should public disruption play in democratic protest, and where should limits lie?
- Are current laws inadequate, or is the challenge primarily about enforcement and resources?
- How do we ensure that any new measures are applied fairly across all political viewpoints?
- What can we learn from how other democracies handle similar tensions?
The coming months will test Britain’s ability to have a difficult national conversation about values that sometimes conflict but which most people hold dear: safety, freedom, community, and democracy.
This article presents multiple perspectives on the UK public order review. Readers are encouraged to engage with primary sources and diverse viewpoints as the review progresses.
Sources: Home Office, The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, Amnesty International UK, Liberty, Conservative Party Conference materials, community organization statements.
Prepared by Ivan Alexander Golden, Founder of THX News™, combining comprehensive research with editorial commitment to representing diverse perspectives on complex policy debates.
