What happened?
On 27 March 2025, Metropolitan Police officers raided the Quaker Meeting Hall in Westminster, London, during a gathering of the activist group Youth Demand. Reportedly, over 20 police officers – some equipped with tasers – forced entry into the building to arrest six women on suspicion of ‘conspiracy to cause a public nuisance’.[1]
The police have sought to justify the raid and the subsequent arrests by referring to the group's purported plans to 'shut down’ London using protest tactics such as (according to the police) ‘swarming’ and blocking roads. (The police did not explain what they meant by ‘swarming’.)
The group Quakers in Britain condemned the raid as ‘an aggressive violation’ of their place of worship, while Youth Demand has claimed that the incident has led to an increase in its number of supporters.
Applicable human rights law
The UK is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which UK courts apply via the Human Rights Act 1998.
Below, we consider what the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights would have to say about the raid.
Freedom of association and assembly (Article 11)
The ECHR establishes at Article 11 that ‘[e]veryone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others’. Governments can only restrict people’s exercise of these rights if the restriction is (1) authorised by law, and (2) the restriction is ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’
To us, it is clear that the raid was carried out by government agents – in this case, the police – meaning that ECHR protections apply. It is also clear that the raid restricted Youth Demand’s right to peaceful assembly (and possibly the rights of other groups that reportedly were in the building during the raid). This is because the raid interrupted a peaceful Youth Demand meeting and pre-emptively attempted to prevent the group from protesting at a later date. The European Court of Human Rights has previously found that the pre-emptive arrest or detention of suspected future protesters amounts to a restriction on their Article 11 rights.[3]
Next, we must consider whether the police complied with UK law when they raided the building and arrested people. In the UK, the police can enter private property in some limited circumstances, as outlined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 – for example, if they have a warrant.[4] They may also enter property if they have reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence is about to take place, is in progress, or has just been committed. We would need to know more about whether the police had a warrant, and if not, what evidence they had to support their suspicions.
Assuming that the raid was authorised by law, the next question is whether the restriction on Youth Demand’s right to peaceful assembly was necessary, in a democratic society, to protecting national security or public safety, preventing disorder or crime, protecting health or morals, or protecting the rights and freedoms of others.
The European Court of Human Rights has found that the government is entitled to restrict the freedom of assembly when a protest involves or incites actual violence.[5] However, based on reporting, it appears that Youth Demand was meeting peacefully at the time. To the extent that the group may have planned to engage in further action, we note that the European Court of Human Rights is clear that a disruption alone is not enough to empower the government to interfere with the protest: the protest must meet the high standard of ‘violence’.[6] The government is not allowed to restrict the right to protest peacefully simply because the protest may involve behaviour that others find inconvenient or annoying, such as a temporary traffic disruption.[7] The government also is not allowed to restrict protest rights because it does not like the message that participants are expressing; the only exceptions are incitement to violence and hate speech.
Although the Court has been willing to accept some procedural restrictions on protests, such as limits based on the location, duration, and public impact of protests, we observe that what happened here was not limit on an ongoing or planned protest.[8] Instead, it was a raid based on alleged future conspiracy to cause a nuisance.
In our view, a ‘nuisance’ – let alone a supposed plan to cause one in the future – does not rise to the level of a threat to national security or public order, or ‘crime’ of similar gravity. Historically, the European Court of Human Rights has often deferred to the state’s assessment of the existence of a legitimate aim and whether a restriction on a right was necessary to pursuing that aim. However, in this instance we believe it is clear that the UK government has not shown that Youth Demand’s activities posed a threat of any harm that would be recognised as sufficiently serious in a democratic society.
Based on the information available to us, we conclude that the raid plainly violated Article 11: it was not necessary in a democratic society for one of the purposes set out in the Convention.
Freedom of expression (Article 10)
Because the raid was targeted at preventing Youth Demand and its members from expressing their views, the right to freedom of expression – established in Article 10 of the ECHR – is also relevant. The first question – as with Article 11 and many other rights – is whether the government has interfered with people’s exercise of the right. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted interference broadly to include any ‘formality, condition, restriction or penalty’.[9] The Court has recognised that the arrest and detention of protesters (including pre-emptively) amount to interferences with those protesters’ Article 10 rights.[10]
The analytical steps are then essentially the same for Article 10 as for Article 11, as these two treaty rights are set out in very similar terms. We therefore take the view, based on what we know, that the raid violated Youth Demand’s Article 10 right to free expression.
Freedom fo religion or belief (Article 9)
As the raid occurred at a Quaker Meeting Hall – a meeting place for members of the Quakers (or the Religious Society of Friends) – the right to freedom of religion or belief is also relevant. According to the Quakers in Britain website, Quakerism ‘grew out of Christianity and today [it] also find[s] meaning and value in other faiths and traditions.’[11] Quakers are members of a religious group that has long faced repression in Britain and elsewhere for embracing views and values that diverge from those of the dominant Christian denominations.
The ECHR distinguishes between the right to hold a belief, which is an absolute right (one that the state cannot interfere with), and the right to manifest that belief, which the state can limit in certain, strictly defined circumstances.[12] One aspect of manifesting a belief is by having a 'place of worship’: a meeting place dedicated to practicing the group’s religious or non-religious values.[13] However, the right does not require states to grant special status to places of religious or non-religious worship; although, if it decides to do so, the state must offer this advantage to all groups.[14] The state must also ensure that its laws, policies and actions do not have a discouraging (or ‘chilling’) effect on people wishing to manifest their beliefs.[15]
Should the state seek to justify an interference with the Article 9 right to freedom of religion, the steps in the analysis are virtually identical to those required for Articles 10 and 11 (see above).[16] This is because the ECHR sets out all these rights using similar language.
The Quaker faith is a protected belief for Article 9 purposes.[17]
However, we think the European Court of Human Rights would likely conclude that the raid and arrests did not impact the Quakers congregation’s manifestation of its religion. As the meeting was of a protest group that was merely using a room at the Quaker Meeting Hall, rather than people practicing their faith, we think the Court would likely find that the raid and arrests did not interfere with people manifesting their religion or belief. This would mean there was no violation of Article 9.
However, if the police were to begin raiding houses of worship regularly, such a practice could cause a ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of religion protected by Article 9, and that ‘chilling effect’ might not be justified.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/29/met-raids-quaker-meeting-house-and-arrests-six-women-at-youth-demand-talk
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/30/youth-demand-says-more-protesters-have-signed-up-since-quaker-house-raid; https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/calls-grow-to-restore-rights-after-police-raid-on-quaker-meeting-house; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/01/questions-raised-by-met-police-raid-on-quaker-meeting-house
[3] Application Nos. 67630/11, 67694/11 and 69379/11, Huseynli and others v. Azerbaijan, Judgment, 11 February 2016, paras. 84-97
[4] PACE 1984, s17
[5] Application No. 37553/05, Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania, Judgment, 15 October 2015, para. 92; Application No. 25196/04, Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova (No. 2), Judgment, 2 February 2010, para. 23
[6] Application No. 37553/05, Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania, Judgment, 15 October 2015, para. 92
[7] See, e.g., Application No. 39013/02, Lucas v. the United Kingdom, Admissibility, 18 March 2003
[8] Application No. 37553/05, Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania, Judgment, 15 October 2015, para. 156
[9] Application No. 28396/95, Wille v. Liechtenstein, Judgment, 28 October 1999, para. 43
[10] See, e.g., Application Nos. 67/1997 and 851/1058, Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment, 23 September 1998; Application No. 31451/03, Açik v. Turkey, Judgment, 13 January 2009; Application No. 27520/07, Akçam v. Turkey, Judgment, 25 October 2011
[11] https://www.quaker.org.uk/faith/our-faith
[12] See Article 9(2)
[13] See, e.g., Application Nos. 36915/10 and 8606/13, Association de Solidarité avec les Temoins de Jehovah and others v. Turkey, Judgment, 24 May 2016, para. 90
[14] Application No. 32093/10, Cumhuri̇ yetçİ Eği̇ ti̇ M ve Kültür Merkezi̇ Vafki v. Turkey, Judgment, 2 December 2014, paras. 48-49
[15] See, e.g., the ECtHR‘s discussion in Application No. 31172/19, Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Finland, Judgment, 9 May 2023, paras. 72-99
[16] See Article 9(2)
[17] See, e.g., Application No. 10358/83, C. v. the United Kingdom, Commission, Admissibility, 15 December 1983; Application No. 11911/86, B.H. and M.B. v. the United Kingdom, Commission, Decision, 18 July 1986
