UK asks Lord Macdonald to review protest, hate laws
Here’s the news in plain terms. The Home Office has asked Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, to run an independent review of protest policing and hate crime law. The announcement was published on GOV.UK on 15 November 2025, a few weeks after the 2 October terrorist attack at a Manchester synagogue reported by Reuters and others. The goal is to keep people safe while protecting lawful protest and free speech.
Ministers say the review responds to rising community tension and complaints about protests that feel intimidating or disruptive. The Home Office frames the task simply: protect communities from hate and disorder, and protect the right to protest and to speak. That is the tight line this review has to walk.
What will be examined? According to the GOV.UK notice, Lord Macdonald will look at the powers police use to manage demonstrations and the current hate crime framework, including offences for aggravated behaviour and ‘stirring up’ hatred. The test is whether the rules are effective, proportionate and applied consistently across the country.
Who is leading it? Lord Macdonald served as Director of Public Prosecutions between 2003 and 2008 and now sits in the House of Lords. He has a long track record in criminal law and public interest work at Matrix Chambers and Oxford. For a review that touches policing, protest and speech, that mix of independence and legal experience matters.
Who is advising? The Home Office says Owen Weatherill, a senior policing specialist, will support the work. Weatherill previously led the National Police Co-ordination Centre and held the National Police Chiefs’ Council brief for Civil Contingencies and national mobilisation during the pandemic years-experience that covers protests, public order and mutual aid between forces.
Let’s pin down two key terms. ‘Stirring up hatred’ refers to offences in the Public Order Act (as extended by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006) that target threatening words or material used with the intention of stirring up hatred towards a protected group. It’s a high legal bar: threats and intent are central, not just causing offence. The Crown Prosecution Service also points to a free expression safeguard in law.
The other phrase you will hear is ‘aggravated offences’. These are everyday crimes such as assault or criminal damage that carry tougher sentences when they involve hostility based on race or religion. Courts can also increase sentences under section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 when hostility is proven. This is why careful recording and evidence gathering by police and prosecutors makes a difference.
Alongside the review, policy is already shifting. The Crime and Policing Bill 2025 includes a duty for senior officers to weigh the ‘cumulative impact’ of repeat demonstrations in the same area when deciding whether to set conditions on protests. The Home Office announced this in October and has issued a human rights memorandum arguing that the change is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 (free expression and assembly) when used proportionately.
If you attend or organise protests, here’s the practical read‑across. Conditions may now take account of previous events at a site, so police could require a different time or location to reduce serious disruption. Breaching lawful conditions still risks arrest. Equally, the ‘stirring up hatred’ offences are tightly drawn; offensive chanting or signs won’t meet that test unless they are threatening and intended to stir up hatred.
If you are worried about hate incidents, the criminal law runs beyond protest settings. CPS guidance explains how prosecutors charge aggravated offences and seek sentence uplifts. Police also record certain ‘non‑crime hate incidents’ to spot risk, under a Home Office Code of Practice introduced in 2023 that raised the threshold to protect free speech and personal data; it requires a real risk of significant harm.
Timelines matter in civic life. The terms of reference will be published in the coming weeks, with the review due to begin imminently and report by February 2026, the Home Office says. Expect recommendations on whether current powers are sufficient, how they are used, and what should change in guidance or law.
As the review unfolds, read it critically. Are definitions of intimidation clear? Are measures for ‘cumulative impact’ specific and measurable? Does it learn from recent court rulings on protest powers, including the Court of Appeal judgment that struck down an earlier attempt to widen police powers via secondary legislation? Above all, does it protect speech and protest while tackling hate and genuine disorder?