Kirsty Brimelow KC has given evidence to the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee as part of its scrutiny of the Metropolitan Police‘s approach to public order. The leading barrister, from Doughty Street Chambers, appeared before Assembly Members amid growing debate over the balance between policing powers and the protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and peaceful protest. Her evidence forms part of a wider examination of how the Met designs, interprets and applies public order policy on the streets of London, and whether recent operational decisions align with the law and with standards of democratic accountability.
Scrutinising the Met How Kirsty Brimelow KC Challenged Public Order Policing at City Hall
Appearing before the Committee, Kirsty Brimelow KC dissected the operational choices behind recent policing of protests, pressing the Met on whether its tactics truly reflected the legal threshold of “serious disruption” or simply a desire to minimise inconvenience. She questioned the use of pre-emptive arrests, extended conditions on assemblies and the deployment of specialist public order units in situations that were, in her analysis, peaceful but politically sensitive. Drawing on frontline casework and judicial review experience, she highlighted a pattern of decisions that, in her view, blurred the line between preventing disorder and suppressing dissent. Her evidence underscored that public confidence is eroded when communities see the law applied robustly to protesters, yet inconsistently to other forms of harm.
Brimelow urged Assembly Members to scrutinise how operational guidance, command logs and on-the-ground briefings translate abstract legislation into street-level practice. She set out key areas where she argued the Met must tighten its standards, including:
- Clarity of legal tests – ensuring officers can distinguish inconvenience from lawful protest.
- Necessity and proportionality – recording why less intrusive measures were rejected.
- Equality of treatment – avoiding patterns that disproportionately affect certain causes or communities.
- Transparency and review – publishing data that allows independent scrutiny of decisions.
| Issue Raised | Brimelow’s Concern | Suggested Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Use of wide-ranging protest bans | Risk of chilling lawful assembly | Narrower, time-limited powers |
| Evidential basis for conditions | Insufficient documented reasoning | Robust written justification |
| Disparities between protests | Perceived political selectivity | Consistent operational criteria |
Legal Standards under Pressure Human Rights Concerns in the Metropolitan Police’s Protest Strategy
The evidence highlighted a growing dissonance between statutory thresholds for intervention and the Metropolitan Police’s operational practice on the ground.Kirsty Brimelow KC underscored how terms such as “serious disruption” and “reasonable suspicion” have been stretched to justify sweeping conditions, rapid dispersal orders and mass use of stop and search powers at protest sites. This drift, she argued, risks transforming exceptional measures into routine tactics, with the cumulative effect of chilling lawful dissent.Key safeguards designed by Parliament to protect fundamental freedoms are increasingly treated as procedural hurdles to be worked around rather than substantive limits to be respected.
From a human rights viewpoint, this recalibration of policing norms collides directly with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, especially Articles 10 and 11. Brimelow pointed to patterns of enforcement that disproportionately impact specific groups, including young people, racialised communities and climate activists, potentially giving rise to discriminatory outcomes.Among the concerns she identified were:
- Low arrest thresholds for protesters engaged in peaceful, symbolic actions
- Broad intelligence-gathering on organisers and legal observers
- Operational opacity around decision-making, including use of pre-emptive conditions
- Inconsistent facilitation of counter-protests and minority viewpoints
| Legal Standard | Intended Safeguard | Observed Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Necessity | Limit interference to last resort | Default to early, intrusive action |
| Proportionality | Balance disruption and rights | Blanket restrictions on assemblies |
| Non-discrimination | Equal treatment of all protesters | Uneven targeting of specific movements |
From Oversight to Accountability What the London Assembly Must Do to Reform Public Order Policy
The evidence provided by Kirsty Brimelow KC underscored that meaningful change depends on the Assembly moving beyond passive scrutiny and into active guardianship of protest rights. This requires a rigorous, transparent framework that forces the Metropolitan Police to justify decisions affecting demonstrations, especially where force, surveillance or wide-area dispersal powers are deployed.To achieve this, Assembly members should embed civil liberties expertise into their oversight mechanisms, insist on full disclosure of operational policies and guidance, and ensure that the voices of organisers, legal observers and marginalised communities are systematically heard.Crucially, oversight must be continuous, not confined to moments of crisis, with clear triggers for review whenever thresholds of arrest numbers, complaints or use of emergency powers are met.
Reform must also be anchored in measurable standards so that accountability is not left to political mood or media pressure. The Assembly should use its committees, reports and public hearings to set and monitor concrete benchmarks for lawful, proportionate and non-discriminatory policing. This could include:
- Mandatory publication of public order operational policies and debriefs, redacted only where strictly necessary.
- Independent review panels including human rights practitioners and community representatives after significant protests.
- Data-driven scrutiny of stop and search,arrest profiles and conditions imposed on assemblies.
- Regular public reporting on complaints, legal challenges and outcomes related to protest policing.
| Priority Area | Assembly Action |
|---|---|
| Transparency | Publish clear protest policing guidelines and after-action reports |
| Rights Protection | Audit compliance with human rights standards and legal judgments |
| Community Trust | Hold open forums with protest groups and affected communities |
| Learning & Redress | Track complaints, outcomes and policy changes in response |
Practical Steps for Change Implementing Clear Guidelines Training and Transparency in the Met Police
Brimelow’s evidence underscored that public confidence hinges on officers knowing precisely what they can and cannot do in fast-moving protest situations.That means translating dense legislation and case law into plain-language operational guidance, accessible on mobile devices and reinforced at every briefing. Clear, scenario-based rules on the use of force, conditions on assemblies, and interactions with legal observers would reduce arbitrary decisions and inconsistent policing. To work, these guidelines must be co-designed with frontline officers, independent experts and community groups, and then rigorously audited to ensure they are being followed in practice, not just filed away as policy.
- Scenario-based workshops on protest policing and human rights
- Mandatory refreshers after major incidents or legal changes
- Open publication of core operational policies and aide-mémoires
- Public reporting on complaints, outcomes and lessons learned
| Focus Area | Concrete Action | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Guidelines | Publish protest decision trees | Reduces inconsistent responses |
| Training | Human rights-led modules | Improves lawful, proportionate policing |
| Transparency | Release redacted body-worn footage | Builds public trust and scrutiny |
Brimelow highlighted that training cannot be a one-off exercise but must be embedded across rank structures, from probationers to senior command, with clear lines of accountability when guidance is breached. Transparency, she argued, is not an abstract ideal but a daily practice: publishing operational policies by default, explaining controversial decisions in real time, and making data on stops, arrests and bail conditions easily accessible. Together, these measures would not only align the Met’s public order tactics with the law, but also expose them to the level of democratic oversight that a modern police service must accept.
Concluding Remarks
As the Met grapples with mounting pressure to balance liberty and order, Brimelow’s intervention serves as a pointed reminder that public confidence is won not through rhetoric but through transparent, lawful practice. The London Assembly’s inquiry is still unfolding, and whether her recommendations will translate into tangible reform remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the legal and political scrutiny of public order policing is intensifying – and voices like Brimelow’s will continue to shape the debate over how far the state can, and should, go in controlling protest on the capital’s streets.
