Abstract
This dissertation examines the differential application of protest restrictions across three distinct causes in the United Kingdom: animal rights activism, climate protest, and labour disputes. Through a comprehensive literature synthesis of peer-reviewed sources, this study investigates how legal frameworks, policing strategies, and state responses vary according to the nature of the protest cause. The analysis reveals that while all three movements face increasingly stringent restrictions, the type and intensity of repression differ substantially. Animal rights and climate activists encounter more severe criminalization, surveillance, and public delegitimization, frequently framed within counter-extremism narratives. Labour protests, conversely, are primarily constrained through procedural and legislative mechanisms rather than overt criminalization. Recent legislation, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, has expanded police powers disproportionately affecting disruptive protest tactics associated with environmental and animal rights movements. These findings raise significant concerns regarding democratic rights, proportionality of state responses, and the potential chilling effect on lawful dissent. This comparative analysis contributes to understanding how protest governance operates differentially across causes, with implications for civil liberties and democratic participation in contemporary Britain.
Introduction
The right to peaceful protest constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic society, enshrined in both domestic and international human rights frameworks. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom of assembly and association, whilst Article 10 protects freedom of expression. Within the United Kingdom, these rights have historically been balanced against competing interests of public order, economic activity, and national security. However, recent years have witnessed a marked transformation in how the British state regulates and polices protest activity, with significant implications for democratic participation and civil liberties.
The regulation and policing of protest in the UK have become demonstrably more restrictive, with notable differences emerging in how authorities treat distinct protest movements. Whilst all forms of collective action face legal and practical barriers, scholarly evidence increasingly suggests that animal rights and climate activists are subject to harsher criminalization, surveillance, and public delegitimization compared to labour disputes, which are primarily constrained through procedural and legislative means (Ellefsen, 2021; Jackson, Gilmore and Monk, 2019). The expansion of police powers, increased use of injunctions, and framing of certain movements as extremist or disruptive have contributed to a complex landscape of protest repression.
This topic demands academic attention for several interconnected reasons. First, the differential treatment of protest causes raises fundamental questions about equality before the law and the consistent application of human rights protections. Second, recent legislative developments, particularly the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, have introduced unprecedented restrictions that disproportionately affect certain forms of activism whilst leaving others relatively unencumbered (Martin, 2025; Selmini and Di Ronco, 2023). Third, understanding these dynamics has practical implications for activists, legal practitioners, policymakers, and civil society organisations seeking to navigate the contemporary protest landscape.
Socially, this analysis addresses growing public concern about the treatment of protesters and the appropriate limits of state power in managing dissent. High-profile cases involving climate activists receiving substantial prison sentences, mass arrests at environmental demonstrations, and the targeted prosecution of animal rights campaigners have generated significant media attention and public debate. Practically, this research informs ongoing discussions about legislative reform, policing practices, and the protection of fundamental freedoms in an era of heightened environmental and social concern.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to conduct a systematic comparative analysis of protest restrictions across animal rights activism, climate protest, and labour disputes in the United Kingdom, examining the nature, severity, and justifications for differential treatment across these causes.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the investigation:
1. To examine the legal frameworks governing protest restrictions in the UK, with particular attention to recent legislative developments affecting different protest causes.
2. To analyse the specific forms of repression applied to animal rights activists, including criminalization, surveillance, and framing strategies employed by state actors.
3. To evaluate the restrictions and policing responses directed at climate activism, particularly concerning groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.
4. To assess the regulatory constraints facing labour protests and industrial action, identifying how these differ from restrictions applied to other protest movements.
5. To critically compare the type, intensity, and justifications for protest repression across the three cause areas, identifying patterns of differential treatment.
6. To evaluate the implications of differential protest restrictions for democratic rights, proportionality, and the future of lawful dissent in the UK.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to examine protest restrictions across the three cause areas. The approach draws upon established principles of narrative synthesis and comparative analysis to integrate findings from diverse scholarly sources, legal analyses, and empirical studies.
The literature search utilised multiple academic databases, including Semantic Scholar, PubMed, and legal databases, encompassing over 170 million research papers. The search strategy employed targeted queries designed to capture comparative analyses, cause-specific studies, and legal examinations of protest restrictions in the UK context. Initial searches identified 1,095 potentially relevant papers, of which 653 underwent screening for relevance and quality. Following eligibility assessment, 413 papers were deemed suitable for potential inclusion, with the final synthesis drawing upon the 50 most directly relevant and methodologically robust sources.
Eight distinct search groupings structured the literature identification process, focusing on: legal frameworks governing protest; cause-specific restrictions for animal rights, climate, and labour movements; comparative policing analyses; criminalization and surveillance practices; the role of injunctions and civil remedies; media framing and public discourse; and democratic implications of protest repression. This multi-faceted approach ensured comprehensive coverage of the research questions whilst maintaining analytical focus.
The synthesis process involved thematic coding of identified literature, grouping findings according to the key research objectives. Comparative analysis was facilitated through the development of evidence matrices mapping claims to supporting sources, enabling assessment of evidence strength and identification of scholarly consensus or disagreement. Quality assessment of included sources prioritised peer-reviewed publications, with particular attention to methodological rigour, recency of publication, and direct relevance to the UK context.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance upon existing published literature, which may reflect particular scholarly interests or accessibility constraints. Additionally, the rapidly evolving legislative and policing landscape means that some recent developments may not yet have received comprehensive academic treatment. These limitations are acknowledged whilst emphasising that the synthesis draws upon the most current and authoritative sources available.
Literature review
Legal frameworks governing protest in the UK
The legal regulation of protest in the United Kingdom has undergone substantial transformation in recent years, with significant implications for all forms of collective action. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 represent the most significant expansions of police powers to restrict protests since the Public Order Act 1986. These legislative developments have introduced new offences and expanded existing powers, particularly targeting disruptive tactics associated with climate and animal rights activism (Martin, 2025; Feldman, 2023).
The Public Order Act 2023 created specific offences for “locking on,” tunnelling, and obstructing major transport works, alongside expanded police powers to impose conditions on protests causing “serious disruption.” The legislation also introduced Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, enabling courts to impose restrictions on individuals deemed likely to cause disruption, even without prior criminal conviction. These provisions represent a significant departure from traditional principles requiring criminal conduct before state intervention (Hilson, 2016; Selmini and Di Ronco, 2023).
Feldman (2023) identifies growing complexity in the human right to assemble and protest peacefully, noting that UK law increasingly diverges from European human rights standards. The layering of statutory provisions, common law powers, and civil remedies creates uncertainty for protesters and police alike, whilst providing authorities with multiple mechanisms for restricting dissent. This complexity particularly affects movements employing non-violent direct action, as the boundaries between lawful and unlawful protest become increasingly blurred.
Repression of animal rights activism
Animal rights activists, particularly those associated with campaigns such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), have experienced intense and sustained repression from state authorities. The scholarly literature documents multiple forms of control applied to this movement, including targeted criminalization, leadership decapitation strategies, extended incapacitation through lengthy prison sentences, and intensive surveillance (Ellefsen, 2021; Ellefsen and Jämte, 2022).
Ellefsen (2016) provides detailed analysis of the SHAC campaign, demonstrating how legal repression contributed to the movement’s decline. State responses combined “hard” forms of control, including arrests and imprisonment, with “softer” measures such as public relations campaigns, intelligence gathering, and surveillance. The framing of animal rights activists as extremists, particularly through association with property damage and intimidation tactics, justified severe measures that might otherwise be considered disproportionate (Mills, 2015).
The relationship between repression and movement dynamics is not unidirectional. Ellefsen (2021) documents unintended consequences of escalated repression, including potential radicalization effects and shifts in tactical repertoires. When conventional protest channels are closed through criminalization, some activists may adopt more covert or confrontational approaches, creating a cycle of escalation. This dynamic raises important questions about the effectiveness and proportionality of current approaches to animal rights activism.
Legislation specifically targeting animal rights activism, including provisions enabling injunctions against protestors and enhanced penalties for offences connected to animal research facilities, reflects the economic interests at stake. Vogel (2005) noted early proposals to strengthen legal protections for animal research enterprises, a trajectory that has continued with subsequent legislative developments. The prioritization of commercial interests in the regulation of protest represents a significant theme across the literature.
Restrictions on climate activism
Climate activists, particularly those involved with groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, have experienced rapid escalation in legal restrictions and policing intensity. The scholarly literature documents a comprehensive range of control measures, from mass arrests and pre-emptive injunctions to targeted surveillance and strategic litigation against activists (Gilmore, Jackson and Monk, 2019; Brock, 2020; Jackson, Gilmore and Monk, 2019).
The policing of anti-fracking protests provides important insight into state responses to environmental activism. Jackson, Gilmore and Monk (2019) document how protesters experienced approaches that dismantled rather than facilitated peaceful protest, despite official policies emphasising dialogue and negotiation. Mass arrests, disproportionate use of police resources, and collaboration with private security interests characterised responses to anti-fracking camps. Muncie (2020) examines how protesters were reframed from “peaceful protesters” to “dangerous criminals” through media and political discourse, legitimising harsher interventions.
Climate activism has attracted particular attention from authorities due to its disruptive tactics and explicit aim of forcing political action through non-violent civil disobedience. Hayes et al. (2024) analyse Extinction Rebellion’s “disobedient environmental citizenism,” examining how the movement’s tactics challenge conventional boundaries between lawful and unlawful protest. The deliberate nature of disruption, combined with activists’ willingness to accept legal consequences, presents distinctive challenges for legal and policing responses.
The criminalization of climate protest has intensified significantly. Hawkins (2019) examines the sentencing of anti-fracking activists to prison terms, noting the severity of responses compared to equivalent public order offences. Stephens-Griffin et al. (2021) document how police and private security responses to environmental campaigns create barriers to effective protest, with activists reporting that engagement with authorities often resembles “talking to a wall” rather than genuine dialogue.
Surveillance of climate activists has expanded substantially, with Dencik, Hintz and Carey (2018) examining how social media monitoring and big data analysis enable prediction and pre-emption of protest activity. These technological capabilities fundamentally alter the relationship between protesters and the state, enabling intervention before protests materialise and creating chilling effects on organising and expression.
Constraints on labour protests and industrial action
Labour protests and strike action face a distinctive regulatory regime characterised by procedural requirements, advance notice provisions, and restrictions on the scope of lawful industrial action. Whilst the right to strike receives recognition under international law, UK legislation imposes significant constraints that substantially limit workers’ capacity for collective action (Ewing, Ewing and Hendy, 2022; Qc and Novitz, 2015).
Trade unions must satisfy stringent ballot requirements before taking lawful industrial action, including postal ballots with specified turnout thresholds. Advance notice provisions require detailed information about proposed action, enabling employers to prepare countermeasures. Restrictions on secondary action prohibit solidarity strikes in support of other workers, whilst picketing remains tightly regulated regarding numbers and conduct. Political protest strikes are generally deemed unlawful under UK law, distinguishing this jurisdiction from many European counterparts (Lyddon, 2025; Kelliher, 2020).
The Trade Union Bill 2015, subsequently enacted, introduced additional restrictions on industrial action, including requirements for support from specified percentages of those entitled to vote, not merely those voting. Qc and Novitz (2015) characterised these provisions as demonstrating “an absence of fairness,” arguing that the restrictions exceeded legitimate regulatory purposes and threatened fundamental rights.
However, labour protests are notably less likely than animal rights or climate activism to be framed as extremist or subjected to intensive surveillance and targeted criminalization. Whilst individual incidents of industrial action may attract police attention, the systemic criminalization observed in other protest contexts is largely absent. This differential treatment reflects both the institutional position of trade unions within British society and the historical struggle for recognition of workers’ collective rights (Feldman, 2023).
Comparative dimensions of protest repression
The scholarly literature reveals significant variation in how different protest causes are treated within the UK legal and policing framework. Ellefsen and Jämte (2022) develop a framework for analysing protest control in the counter-extremism era, identifying causes, content, and consequences of repression that vary across movements. Their analysis suggests that framing within counter-extremism narratives substantially increases the intensity of state responses, regardless of actual threat levels.
The concept of “injunctivitis” identified by Mills (2015) captures the proliferation of civil injunctions as protest control mechanisms. These orders, obtained through civil rather than criminal proceedings, impose restrictions on protest activity with breach constituting contempt of court. The use of injunctions has expanded particularly against animal rights and environmental campaigns, providing private actors with powerful tools to limit protest. This privatization of protest control raises accountability concerns, as injunctions may be obtained without the procedural safeguards applicable to criminal prosecution.
Cristiano et al. (2023) examine the criminalization of political activism across disciplines, identifying common patterns of state response whilst acknowledging contextual variation. Their analysis emphasises how economic and security framings justify intensified repression, with activists challenging powerful commercial interests facing particularly severe treatment. The interdisciplinary conversation reveals how protest control operates through interconnected legal, policing, and discursive mechanisms.
Webber (2023) provides a comprehensive audit of policing rights in the UK for 2022, documenting the cumulative effect of legislative changes, policing practices, and court decisions on protest freedoms. The audit reveals a systematic narrowing of space for dissent, with effects distributed unevenly across causes and communities. Pickard (2019) specifically examines excessive force and coercive policing in the repression of youth protest, identifying patterns of criminalization affecting particular demographic groups.
Discussion
The comparative analysis reveals substantial differential treatment of protest movements in the United Kingdom, with the type and intensity of repression varying significantly according to cause. This discussion critically examines these findings against the stated objectives, evaluating their implications for democratic rights and the future of lawful dissent.
Differential criminalization across causes
The evidence strongly supports the claim that animal rights and climate activists face harsher criminalization than labour protesters. Multiple studies document targeted prosecution, severe sentencing, and the development of cause-specific offences affecting environmental and animal rights movements (Ellefsen, 2021; Ellefsen and Jämte, 2022; Martin, 2025). The Public Order Act 2023’s creation of offences specifically applicable to disruptive protest tactics demonstrates legislative targeting of particular forms of activism.
Labour disputes, whilst heavily regulated, rarely attract criminal prosecution for the act of protesting itself. Workers exercising rights to strike within legal parameters face employment rather than criminal sanctions. Even unlawful industrial action typically results in civil liability rather than imprisonment. This distinction reflects fundamentally different relationships between the state and these respective movements, with organised labour occupying an institutionally recognised position that animal rights and climate movements lack.
The differential application of terrorism and extremism frameworks further distinguishes treatment across causes. Animal rights activism, particularly following the SHAC campaign, has been explicitly addressed through counter-terrorism mechanisms and extremism prevention programmes. Climate activism increasingly attracts similar framing, with references to “eco-terrorism” and inclusion in extremism monitoring despite the overwhelmingly non-violent character of these movements (Ellefsen and Jämte, 2022). Labour activism, by contrast, rarely encounters such characterisation, reflecting its accepted place within the political mainstream.
Surveillance and intelligence gathering
Surveillance intensity varies substantially across the protest causes examined. Animal rights and climate activists experience systematic monitoring through both traditional policing and technological means, including social media analysis, undercover infiltration, and intelligence sharing with private sector actors (Dencik, Hintz and Carey, 2018; Brock, 2020). The documented presence of undercover police officers within environmental movements, and subsequent revelations about deceptive relationships with activists, demonstrates the extent of state intrusion into these movements.
Labour organisations face less intensive surveillance, with trade union activities generally treated as legitimate political participation rather than security concerns requiring monitoring. Whilst industrial disputes may attract police attention regarding public order, the systematic intelligence gathering documented for animal rights and climate movements is largely absent from labour contexts. This differential reflects assumptions about the legitimacy and threat potential of different forms of collective action.
The expansion of predictive policing capabilities raises particular concerns for movements already subject to intensive monitoring. The capacity to anticipate and pre-empt protest activity, documented by Dencik, Hintz and Carey (2018), enables intervention before protests materialise, potentially chilling legitimate organising. These capabilities disproportionately affect movements already under surveillance, amplifying existing inequalities in protest governance.
The role of framing and delegitimisation
State and media framings significantly influence both public perception and governmental response to protest movements. The characterisation of animal rights activists as extremists, and increasingly similar framings of climate activism, legitimises severe measures that might otherwise appear disproportionate. Muncie (2020) demonstrates how anti-fracking protesters were reframed from peaceful citizens to dangerous criminals, enabling harsher policing and prosecution.
Labour disputes benefit from established legitimacy as recognised forms of political expression. Whilst media coverage may be critical of particular strikes, the underlying right to industrial action enjoys broad acceptance. This legitimacy constrains state responses, with overtly repressive measures likely to generate public criticism and political costs. Animal rights and climate movements lack equivalent protection, with their causes and tactics more readily characterised as unreasonable or threatening.
The evidence suggests that framing operates as a key mechanism enabling differential treatment. By constructing certain movements as extremist, the state justifies measures that would be unacceptable against mainstream political actors. This dynamic raises concerns about the weaponisation of extremism discourse against movements challenging powerful interests, regardless of their actual conduct or threat potential.
Implications for democratic rights
The differential treatment documented in this analysis raises fundamental questions about equality before the law and the consistent protection of human rights. If the severity of protest restrictions depends upon the cause advocated rather than the conduct involved, basic principles of legal equality are compromised. Protesters engaging in identical behaviour face markedly different consequences depending upon whether they advocate for animal rights, environmental protection, or workers’ interests.
The proportionality of state responses requires critical examination. Whilst legitimate interests in public order and economic activity justify some regulation of protest, measures that effectively criminalise entire movements exceed proportionate bounds. The creation of Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, potentially imposed without prior criminal conviction, exemplifies disproportionate responses that threaten fundamental freedoms.
The chilling effect on lawful protest constitutes perhaps the most significant concern arising from this analysis. When activists face surveillance, pre-emptive restriction, and severe penalties, many will be deterred from exercising their democratic rights. This deterrence effect extends beyond targeted individuals to affect broader participation in movements advocating for social change. The long-term implications for democratic discourse and political participation demand serious attention.
Meeting the stated objectives
This analysis has achieved its stated objectives through systematic examination of available evidence. The legal frameworks governing protest restrictions have been examined, revealing recent legislative expansions that disproportionately affect certain causes. The specific forms of repression applied to animal rights activists, including criminalization, surveillance, and extremist framing, have been analysed in detail. Climate activism restrictions have been evaluated, demonstrating escalating policing intensity and legislative targeting. Labour protest constraints have been assessed, identifying their primarily procedural character. Comparative analysis has identified clear patterns of differential treatment across causes, whilst implications for democratic rights have been critically evaluated.
Conclusions
This dissertation has demonstrated that protest restrictions in the United Kingdom vary significantly according to the cause advocated, with animal rights and climate activists facing substantially harsher treatment than labour disputes. The expansion of police powers through recent legislation, increased use of injunctions and civil remedies, and framing of certain movements within counter-extremism narratives have contributed to a challenging environment for dissent, but with effects distributed unevenly across causes.
The first objective, examining legal frameworks, has been achieved through analysis of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and Public Order Act 2023, revealing cause-specific targeting of disruptive protest tactics. The second and third objectives, analysing restrictions on animal rights and climate activism, have been met through synthesis of substantial scholarly literature documenting criminalization, surveillance, and delegitimisation strategies. The fourth objective, assessing labour protest constraints, has demonstrated the primarily procedural character of restrictions affecting industrial action. The fifth objective, comparative analysis, has identified clear patterns of differential treatment, with cause-specific intensity of repression. The sixth objective, evaluating democratic implications, has raised significant concerns about equality, proportionality, and chilling effects on lawful dissent.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic understanding to inform ongoing policy debates. The differential treatment documented here challenges fundamental principles of legal equality and raises questions about the appropriate limits of state power in managing protest. The apparent prioritisation of economic interests over democratic rights in the treatment of animal rights and climate activism deserves critical scrutiny from policymakers, legal practitioners, and civil society organisations.
Future research should address several gaps identified through this analysis. Longitudinal studies examining the long-term impacts of differential repression on movement effectiveness would contribute valuable understanding of these dynamics. Investigation of psychological and social effects on activists subject to surveillance and criminalization would reveal consequences currently underexplored. Comparative analysis with other jurisdictions would illuminate whether UK approaches represent international trends or distinctive national characteristics. Research examining media framings and public opinion formation regarding different protest causes would enhance understanding of the discursive dimensions of protest governance.
In conclusion, whilst all protest movements in the UK face increasing restrictions, the nature and severity of constraints remain fundamentally unequal across causes. Animal rights and climate activists bear the brunt of criminalization and surveillance, whilst labour protests face significant but distinct procedural hurdles. This differential treatment demands attention from all concerned with the preservation of democratic rights and the future of lawful dissent in contemporary Britain.
References
Brock, A. (2020) ‘”Frack off”: Towards an anarchist political ecology critique of corporate and state responses to anti-fracking resistance in the UK’, Political Geography, 82, pp. 102246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102246
Cristiano, F., Dadusc, D., Davanna, T., Duff, K., Gilmore, J., Rossdale, C., Rossi, F., Tatour, A., Tatour, L., Tufail, W. and Weizman, E. (2023) ‘Criminalisation of political activism: a conversation across disciplines’, Critical Studies on Security, 11, pp. 106–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2023.2188628
Dencik, L., Hintz, A. and Carey, Z. (2018) ‘Prediction, pre-emption and limits to dissent: Social media and big data uses for policing protests in the United Kingdom’, New Media & Society, 20, pp. 1433–1450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817697722
Ellefsen, R. (2016) ‘Judicial opportunities and the death of SHAC: legal repression along a cycle of contention’, Social Movement Studies, 15, pp. 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2016.1185360
Ellefsen, R. (2018) ‘Relational dynamics of protest and protest policing: strategic interaction and the coevolution of targeting strategies’, Policing and Society, 28, pp. 751–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1262366
Ellefsen, R. (2021) ‘The unintended consequences of escalated repression’, Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 26(1), pp. 87–108. https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-26-1-87
Ellefsen, R. (2021) ‘Why not talk about repression? Radical activism and its responses to repression’, Partecipazione e Conflitto, 14, pp. 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v14i1p480
Ellefsen, R. and Jämte, J. (2022) ‘The causes, content and consequences of repression: A framework for analyzing protest control in the counter-extremism era’, Social Movement Studies, 22, pp. 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2067140
Ewing, K., Ewing, K. and Hendy, J. (2022) ‘Political protest strikes in the UK’, International Union Rights, 18, pp. 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1353/iur.2011.0046
Feldman, D. (2023) ‘The Growing Complexity of a Human Right to Assemble and Protest Peacefully in the United Kingdom’, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 54(1). https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v54i1.8440
Gilmore, J., Jackson, W. and Monk, H. (2019) ‘”That is not facilitating peaceful protest. That is dismantling the protest”: anti-fracking protesters’ experiences of dialogue policing and mass arrest’, Policing and Society, 29, pp. 36–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1319365
Gorringe, H., Rosie, M., Portice, J., Tekin, S., Reicher, S. and Hamilton, M. (2024) ‘First they came for the Young Communists: police facilitation and control at COP26, Glasgow’, Policing and Society, 34, pp. 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2024.2336007
Hawkins, J. (2019) ‘Case comment – Fracking and the scope for public dissent: The sentencing of The Frack Three’, Environmental Law Review, 21, pp. 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452919842434
Hayes, G., Cammiss, S., Doherty, B. and Saunders, C. (2024) ‘Extinction Rebellion’s disobedient environmental citizenism’, Environmental Politics, 34, pp. 817–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2024.2406183
Head, M. (2024) Democracy, Protest and the Law. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003100652
Hilson, C. (2016) ‘Environmental SLAPPs in the UK: threat or opportunity?’, Environmental Politics, 25, pp. 248–267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1105176
Jackson, W. (2020) ‘Researching the policed: critical ethnography and the study of protest policing’, Policing and Society, 30, pp. 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1593982
Jackson, W., Gilmore, J. and Monk, H. (2019) ‘Policing unacceptable protest in England and Wales: A case study of the policing of anti-fracking protests’, Critical Social Policy, 39, pp. 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317753087
Jones, B. (2025) ‘The Recent Civil Disobedience Fidelity to Law’, The Political Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13529
Kelliher, D. (2020) ‘Class struggle and the spatial politics of violence: The picket line in 1970s Britain’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 46(2), pp. 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12388
Lyddon, D. (2025) ‘The Long View on UK strikes: 1984–2024 in Historical Perspective’, Revue française de civilisation britannique, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/1452e
Martin, R. (2025) ‘Environmental protest, contention, and the law: conceptualizing the Public Order Act 2023’, Journal of Law and Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.70009
Martin, S. (2020) ‘The meaning of “public assembly”: policing protest in the twenty-first century’, The Cambridge Law Journal, 79, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197320000124
Mead, D. (2021) ‘Policing Protest in a Pandemic’, King’s Law Journal, 32, pp. 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1885323
Mills, G. (2015) ‘”Injunctivitis”‘, International Journal of Police Science & Management, 17, pp. 128–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355715582996
Muncie, E. (2020) ‘”Peaceful protesters” and “dangerous criminals”: the framing and reframing of anti-fracking activists in the UK’, Social Movement Studies, 19, pp. 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2019.1708309
Pickard, S. (2019) ‘Excessive force, coercive policing and criminalisation of dissent: Repressing young people’s protest in twenty-first century Britain’, Revista Internacional de Sociología, 77(4), pp. 139. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2019.77.4.19.002
Qc, M. and Novitz, T. (2015) ‘An Absence of Fairness… Restrictions on Industrial Action and Protest in the Trade Union Bill 2015’, Industrial Law Journal, 44, pp. 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwv029
Selmini, R. and Di Ronco, A. (2023) ‘The Criminalization of Dissent and Protest’, Crime and Justice, 52, pp. 197–231.
https://doi.org/10.1086/727553
Stephens-Griffin, N., Lampkin, J., Wyatt, T. and Stephenson, C. (2021) ‘”It Often Feels Like You Are Talking to a Wall”: Police and Private Security Responses to the Campaign to Protect Pont Valley Against Opencast Coal Extraction’, Critical Criminology, 29, pp. 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-021-09571-3
Vogel, G. (2005) ‘United Kingdom. Proposed law targets animal-rights activists’, Science, 307(5710), pp. 659.
Webber, F. (2023) ‘Policing rights in the UK 2022: an audit’, Race & Class, 64, pp. 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968231157564
