Ms Braverman, then home secretary, introduced regulations in June 2023 which significantly reduced the threshold at which the police could impose almost-unlimited conditions on protests from anything that caused “serious disruption” to anything that was deemed as causing “more than minor” disruption.

The measure was controversially introduced via secondary legislation despite being rejected by the House of Lords while the primary legislation – the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 – was making its way through Parliament.

Human rights campaigners successfully challenged the lawfulness of the regulations in the High Court in May 2024 and had urged the Labour government which came to office in July that year to respect the ruling.

The new government instead decided to continue the appeal, which was this morning dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lord Justice Edis upheld the High Court’s ruling, saying “the term ‘serious’ inherently connotes a high threshold… [and] cannot reasonably encompass anything that is merely ‘more than minor’”.

The court will decide in the coming weeks if the legislation is to be quashed.

Liberty, which brought the original legal challenge, has called on the government to accept the judgment and to review every arrest and prosecution that has been made under the law.

Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said: “Today’s judgment is clear, just as it was last year, that these laws should never have been made. They were a flagrant abuse of power from a government determined to shut down protesters they did not personally agree with. 

“Five different judges over two separate hearings have now ruled that ‘serious’ simply cannot mean ‘more than minor’. It’s therefore even more surprising that the current government chose to continue the appeal into this case and argue that wasn’t the case.

“As a result, even more people have been needlessly funnelled into the criminal system over the past 12 months through a law that should never have existed in the first place.

“This ruling is a huge victory for democracy, and sets an important precedent that government ministers must respect the law, and cannot simply step outside it to do whatever they want.

“The next step for the government is simple – they must accept this ruling and agree to scrap this unlawful legislation once and for all.” 

Katy Watts, lawyer at Liberty, added: “We launched this legal action two years ago to ensure that governments are not able to sneak in legislation via the back door that weakens the rights of all of us. This judgment is a victory for Parliament and the rule of law.  

“The regulations we’ve defeated today are just one of many anti-protest laws introduced in recent years which have criminalised protesters and clamped down on the ways we can make our voices heard.

“It’s especially worrying that even more measures are going through Parliament, including bans on face coverings at protests that would make it unsafe for disabled activists and political dissidents to protest.

“Protest is a fundamental right and the cornerstone of our democracy. It must not be undermined by governments who want to shut down the ways we hold them to account.

“We hope today’s ruling makes the government take stock and take a different direction that respects protest rights, instead of stripping them away further.”

Liberty was represented by Jude Bunting KC of Doughty Street Chambers, Hollie Higgins of Blackstone Chambers and Rosalind Comyn of Matrix Chambers.