Protests and face-coverings

In the aftermath of the 1984 Miner's Strike, the Public Order Act 1986 was enacted. 

Until 1986, apart from some minor changes, there was a legislative gap of 50 years after the enactment of the Public Order Act 1936 which was aimed at genuinely far right* political movements such as the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley (1896 - 1980).

Since the 1986 Act, there has been almost continual action by politicians of all parties in government to restrict and control protest. This trend continues with the Crime and Policing Bill, currently before the House of Lords. Part 9 of the Bill is headed 'New Offences relating to protests and assemblies' and includes Clause 118 (Concealing identity at protests). 

The outcome is that 'public order' is governed by a complex and extensive accumulation of legislation such that it is, in practice, very difficult to protest without breaking the law in some way.

 

Concealing identity (e.g. Face coverings)

The Crime and Policing Bill (Clause 118) will make it an offence for a person to be in a designated public place if wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity or another person's identity. The Clause provides for defences including wearing or using the item for the purposes of religious observance.

A key part of present-day law is section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 . That was the Act that turned 'right to silence' legislation made for Northern Ireland during 'The Troubles' into a permanent feature of the law in England and Wales - (see the 1994 Act sections 34 to 39A - Inferences from Silence).

In 2001, Section 60AA was added to the 1994 Act and is a power to require the removal of disguises. 

Provided that certain authorisations are in force, uniformed Police have power to (a) require any person to remove any item which the constable reasonably believes that person is wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his identity or (b) seize any item which the constable reasonably believes any person intends to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose.

The authorisations are given by Police Officers who must, usually, be above the rank of Inspector. 

The section is not merely about face-coverings but applies to wearing 'any item' that conceals identity.

If a constable chooses to exercise this power then he will be judged against an objective "reasonable belief" standard but this test will probably be easily met in most protest situations. 

A person who fails to remove an item worn by him when required to do so by a constable .... is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.

The UK Government’s plan to ban face coverings at protests - Liberty 23 April 2025

Suppose that a protest is taking place and that protester (A) is asked to remove a face-covering whereas protester (B) - who may or may not be a counter-protester - is not asked to remove a face-covering. That scenario is not mentioned in the legislation but all that appears to be required is that the Police Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the test is met with regard to (A). If this view is correct, the Police are entitled to choose who they challenge under section 60AA.

 

JUSTICE has expressed concern about the Crime and Policing Bill 

They have serious reservations about the Protest provisions in the Bill, particularly clauses 86 and 90. The existing public order legal framework under provisions such as section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (the “CJPOA 1994”) (which gives police the authority to request removal of items
concealing identity) and those contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (the
“PCSCA 2022”) (which criminalise and impose restrictions on a range of protest-related activity) is already excessive and constitutes a disproportionate interference with the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (the “ECHR”). 

Footnote: 

* The phrase 'far right hatred' was used by the Prime Minister in a speech on 1 August 2024 in the aftermath of disorder following the Southport murders. The speech is HERE. 

The words 'far right' are matters of political opinion and lack legal definition. Nonetheless, they are capable of embracing a large spectrum of conduct. However, very few would argue that a body like British Union of Fascists was not 'far right.' (The latter paragraph added 18 August 2025).