Public Order and Public Trust: Lord Macdonald’s Review and the Future of Protest Law

The announcement of an independent review of public-order and hate-crime legislation has opened a crucial debate about how Britain will balance liberty and security in an increasingly polarised society. The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, to lead the review in the wake of the 2 October terrorist attack in Manchester.¹ The review will examine whether the current framework of laws governing protest, “aggravated” hate offences, and “stirring up hatred” remains effective, proportionate, and compatible with the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The government’s concern is clear: community tension, disruptive protests, and intimidation are becoming features of public life, and ministers argue that the law must be capable of “protecting the public, while upholding the right to protest and free speech.”² The terms of reference will be confirmed imminently, with the review expected to conclude by February 2026.³ Until then, the announcement has prompted wide reflection across legal, civil-liberties, and academic spheres on what this review represents—and what it may change.

Public-order legislation is not a static instrument but a mirror of the nation’s political imagination. It reveals how we understand dissent, fear, cohesion, and the boundaries of acceptable expression. It shapes what Britain considers normal in public life: noisy streets or quiet squares; tolerated anger or managed consensus; ideological conflict or enforced civility. In that sense, Lord Macdonald’s review is not merely technical but symbolic. It asks, implicitly: is the British tradition of protest under genuine threat from modern extremism—or from the state’s response to it?

Lord Macdonald’s appointment has been received with cautious approval in legal circles, where his independence and prosecutorial experience are seen as guarantees of a serious examination rather than a political gesture.⁴ Yet among campaigners for civil liberties the mood is wary. Several organisations argue that recent expansions of police powers—particularly concerning the “impact” of repeated demonstrations—already push the UK toward a narrowing of lawful dissent.⁵ For them, the danger is not a lack of law but the accumulation of laws whose combined effect is to chill protest under the language of security.

Civil-liberties groups insist that the right to protest is not a decorative freedom but a constitutional necessity. Recent public commentary highlights fears that vague definitions of “serious disruption,” “stirring up hatred,” or “community impact” create a risk of subjective enforcement. Liberty has warned that new layers of legislation could “strip the right to protest … to the bone,” unless the review reflects public nuance about disruption⁶—a point echoed by several academic analyses of cumulative protest restrictions.⁷ The United Kingdom’s legal tradition is rooted in the presumption that speech remains free unless clearly unlawful, not that it requires state permission.

Legal commentary tends to frame the review as an overdue re-evaluation, rather than a predestined tightening. Professional analysis from legal firms and journals stresses the importance of assessing whether existing legislation is effective and proportionate to contemporary risks⁸—especially in light of police powers created since 2022. As one recent summary noted, the current debate reflects “concerns around disruptive and intimidating protests” as well as serious acts of politically motivated violence.⁹ In that sense, the review may be an opportunity to clarify definitions, simplify overlapping statutes, and address inconsistencies in enforcement, rather than a mandate for fresh prohibitions.

Underlying the legal debate is a deeper cultural question: what is the nature of “hate” in a society defined by competing identities? Hate-crime legislation was originally conceived to protect vulnerable communities from harassment and violence. But as the concept of harm has expanded—from physical injury to emotional or psychological offence—the potential reach of the law has widened. This development raises legitimate questions about speech, religion, philosophy, and dissent. When language itself becomes a site of criminal liability, the boundaries between hate, criticism, and conviction become contested—and potentially politicised.

The political impetus for the review lies in a moment of genuine social strain. Britain faces divisive protest movements, online radicalisation, migration pressures, and geopolitical conflicts that surface in domestic politics. Public spaces have become stages for ideological confrontation, and the state is searching for tools to prevent escalation. Yet, the danger is equally that in the name of social cohesion, the law creates a brittle civic culture, where uncomfortable views disappear from the streets only to reappear online—radicalised by exclusion.

If Lord Macdonald’s review succeeds, it will help restore public trust by re-anchoring protest law in principle rather than political mood. It will distinguish between protest and coercion; between incitement and argument; between genuine threats and the discomfort of democratic disagreement. It will set a standard for policing that is consistent, transparent, and non-ideological, and define hate crime in ways that genuinely protect vulnerable communities without erasing lawful dissent.

If it fails, Britain risks normalising a technocratic model of public order where rights contract quietly under the pressure of events. The temptation to manage social tension by redefining protest as disruption, or dissent as hostility, can be subtle. It does not need a single dramatic law; it arrives by increments. The challenge for the review is therefore to resist not only violent extremism, but also the softer impulse toward legal overreach.

Britain’s historic instinct has been to trust its citizens with liberty. That instinct is being tested. To respond with confidence rather than defensiveness is to uphold the deeper principles that make our society resilient. Lord Macdonald’s review offers an opportunity to re-articulate those principles—in a way that recognises new threats without sacrificing old freedoms.

Review of public order and hate crime legislation, GOV.UK (Home Office), 15 November 2025.
“Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC has been appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime.”
GOV.UK announcement, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, statement on review following Manchester attack.
GOV.UK announcement, “Terms of reference … expected to commence imminently and conclude by February 2026.”
Solicitors Journal, Review of public order laws begins, professional summary of review process.
Independent reporting on criticism from civil-liberties organisations on protest restrictions.
Liberty, commentary on anti-protest legislation and warnings against “stripping” protest rights.
Richard Martin, UK Constitutional Law Blog, “Counting cumulative impact: more public order law additions,” analysis of protest restrictions.
Wiggin LLP, Public Order and Hate Crime Legislation: government announces review, legal briefing.
Solicitors Journal, coverage of the review’s background “concerns around disruptive and intimidating protests.”

Latest ARTICLES

TRADITION BEHIND THE FENCE
The Vatican’s prohibition of the traditional Ad Petri Sedem pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica has sparked controversy, especially among traditional Catholics. While some cite scheduling conflicts, the broader issue lies in the restrictive policies of Traditionis custodes, which may confine traditional liturgical practices to specific enclaves, risking the transmission and recognition of Catholic Tradition within the wider Church.
Today’s Mass: October 24 St Raphael the Archangel
The Feast of Saint Raphael the Archangel highlights his healing powers as depicted in the Book of Tobit, where he aids Tobit and his son, Tobiah. Venerated as a protector of travellers and the blind, Raphael is celebrated for his miraculous interventions. His legacy includes support for nurses, matchmakers, and Catholic studies.
25.10.26 Nuntiatoria CXXIX: CHRISTUS REX
The text discusses the relationship between Christ’s kingship and authority within the Church amidst contemporary challenges. It contrasts ecclesiastical power with genuine faith, emphasising that authority must protect divine truth rather than alter it. The witness of imprisoned priests illustrates the enduring significance of fidelity to Christ over institutional conformity.
THE DOMESTIC CHURCH: 25 October – 2 November 2026 A Home with Room for Heaven: Preparing for All Saints and All Souls
The content outlines a week’s plan for traditional Catholic families to prepare for the feasts of All Saints and All Souls. Emphasising daily prayers, remembrance of the deceased, and engagement with children’s activities, it aims to integrate Catholic customs into family life, enriching spiritual practices and fostering a shared faith experience.
ORDO w/c 25.10.26
The text outlines the liturgical calendar for the last week of October and the beginning of November, highlighting key celebrations. Notable events include the Feast of Christ the King, St Evaristus, the Vigil of Saints Simon and Jude, and the Feast of All Saints, emphasising themes of holiness, unity in faith, and the Church’s teachings.