The Crime and Policing Act 2026 finally became law on 29 April and, like previous criminal justice legislation, it is vast. It includes several new police powers and new offences related to protests in Part 10 of the Act. The main four are:
- powers for the police to consider the ‘cumulative impact’ of repeated protests to justify restrictions on protests
- a new offence of concealing your identity during a protest
- protesting outside the home of a politician or ‘public officer-holder’
- restrictions outside of places of worship
Together, the Act grants the police sweeping powers to justify increased and severe restrictions and solidifies in law the idea that protests are little more than disruption, rather than expressions of democratic rights.
There are also new offences for possessing smoke flares or ‘pyro’ at a demonstration, while climbing on a war memorial without a valid reason is now a crime, prompted by this incident at a Palestine solidarity march in 2023. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 had previously created a specific offence of criminal damage to memorials, but not for climbing on one.
Cumulative impact
The new Act amends sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, adding a requirement on a senior police officer to “take into account any relevant cumulative disruption” when deciding on imposing restrictions or limits on a march (section 12) or a rally (section 14).
Cumulative impact is defined as any repeated or concurrent protest in the same area, regardless of subject, motivation or connection. This means any other demonstrations that have taken place in an area, or that are held at the same time, or are planned for the future, that “may result in serious disruption to the life of the community”. This does not have to mean the same campaign, or the same protesters.
By giving senior officers the ability to ‘ration’ the exercise of rights to freedom of assembly that they believe are used ‘too often’ (both by repeat protests like the regular Palestine solidarity marches in London, which are the main target, or because of protests by other causes or campaigns), this change in the law effectively gives the police the ability, which they notionally did not previously have, to grant permission for holding a protest.
There is no time limit on how far back any consideration of cumulative impact might think is ‘relevant’. The onus appears to fall on protest organisers to challenge restrictions in the courts if, as we suspect, these powers are used stringently.
As our recent State of Protest report highlighted, the police – specifically, the Metropolitan Police – have not waited on the passage of the Act to impose restrictions justified by claims of repeat disruption. In May 2025, for example, it blocked International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) protests, citing the ‘cumulative impact’ of weekly protests. Similarly, in November 2025, the Met forced the Palestine Coalition to change the route of its planned march, against citing the “cumulative effect of protests’.
Concealing your identity
Previously it was an offence to refuse to remove a face covering when instructed to after an order had been imposed by a senior officer, under Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. This power remains, but a new power sits alongside it: police can designate an area a ‘mask-free zone’ for up to 24 hours if a protest is planned and it is deemed “expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences”. This means that wearing a mask becomes an offence.
Concealment is defined very broadly: It includes “wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity or another person’s identity” and not just a face mask. It is unclear, for example, whether using a banner or other objects to restrict the police from filming protesters might result in arrests.
In theory, police officers require “reasonable suspicion” that a face covering at a protest is intended to conceal involvement in criminal activity, but past practice suggest the police are likely to intervene against protesters as soon as an order has been imposed.
This will have the greatest impact on anyone seeking to protect their anonymity (with particular implications for racialised communities, migrants and criminalised groups), those with disabilities (such as protesters wearing face coverings due to vulnerabilities or immuno-compromising conditions), and those wearing face coverings for religious reasons.
The Act does allow a defence for a person charged with a concealment offence to prove that they wore or used an item health reasons, religious observance, or related to their work. This is, however, long after their rights to protest have already been violated.
Protesting outside the home of a ‘public officer-holder’
Last month, Netpol wrote about the moral panic that led to this new offence, which applies to anyone who “carries on a protest outside, or in the vicinity of, premises that are used by a public office-holder as a dwelling”.
If you try to persuade an elected official (from a parish councillor to a government minister), near to their home, to alter decisions made in the course of their duties, or to condemn the decisions they have taken (or failed to take), then you face the risk of arrest and prosecution.
Restricting protests at places of worship
The new Act further amends sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, adding “the vicinity of a place of worship” and actions that may deter people from accessing their synagogue, mosque or church, as justifications for imposing restrictions on protests.
When the government raised this proposal in 2025, it alluded to members of the Jewish community too afraid “about travelling to their places of worship during large-scale demonstrations, especially in central London”. This was due to the intention, in January 2025, of the Palestine Coalition to start a march at the BBC near Oxford Circus, which had previously been a regular marshalling point for a variety of demonstrations. The implication is that these marches deliberately target synagogues. This is a lie recently repeated again by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley and was condemned as “dishonest and reckless” by protest organisers, who have made a formal complaint about his comments.
The potential impact of this new grounds for restricting protests is that police are unlikely to grant permission for a demonstration that supports Palestinian human rights or is critical of the Israeli government – political views held by thousands of Jewish people – if this passes close to a synagogue and takes place on Shabbat. This is also likely if protesters seek to rally outside a synagogue that is promoting Zionist recruitment of settlers to occupy Palestinian land. This is because, in the police’s view, this may “intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”. Potentially, this could also apply too, for example, to planning a protest against an anti-LGBTQ church.
Implementation
Not all of the Act’s provisions come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Many require secondary legislation — regulations made by ministers to set out the detail of implementation — or a formal ministerial commencement order.
Netpol https://netpol.org/2026/05/08/explainer-the-crime-and-policing-act-2026/
