FROM PROTECT THE WILD & THE DECISION REGARDING PROTEST BLOCKED BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Judicial Review Launched Over Public Order Act Amendment ROB POWNALL MAR 3 READ IN APP On 4 February, the House of Lords voted not to block the Government’s changes to the Public Order Act, expanding the definition of “key national infrastructure” to include animal testing facilities. That vote came after months of campaigning by Camp Beagle, Animal Aid, Naturewatch Foundation, Protect the Wild, and others. Tens of thousands of emails were sent to MPs and peers. People travelled to Westminster. Legal concerns were raised repeatedly and placed firmly on the record. Despite strong opposition, the regulations were approved. It was a setback. But it was not the end. Lawyers for Animals, alongside co-claimant Maria Iriart from Camp Beagle, are now pursuing a judicial review challenging the decision to classify the life sciences sector, including animal testing facilities, as key national infrastructure A judicial review allows the High Court to examine whether the Government acted lawfully in introducing these regulations. It looks at whether ministers remained within their legal powers, whether proper reasoning and evidence were provided, and whether fundamental rights such as the right to protest have been unlawfully restricted. If the court finds the regulations are unlawful, they can be quashed. The claim argues that extending these powers goes beyond what Parliament intended under the 2023 Act. Maria Iriart, bringing this case as co-claimant alongside Lawyers for Animals, has spoken about the uncertainty these new powers create: “I have dedicated a significant part of my life to peacefully protesting against the use of animals in regulatory tests. The fact that I do not know what kind of behaviour will now constitute ‘interference’ makes the prospect of continuing to protest quite scary… I have no idea if holding up a placard, using a loudspeaker, making the wrong kind of gesture, wearing a costume, or even posting on social media, could now be a serious criminal offence.” That uncertainty is exactly why this case matters. We also want to thank Maria for stepping forward as a co-claimant in this challenge. Bringing a case like this as an individual against the Government is not a small decision, and it plays an important role in ensuring these powers are properly tested. Camp Beagle has kept attention on this issue for years. Campaigners across the movement refused to let these regulations pass quietly. Supporters helped fund the this legal challenge. All of that effort has led to this moment. We recently introduced Lawyers for Animals to you and explained why their work is so important. This judicial review is a clear example of that work in action. When Government power expands, it must be examined through the courts. That is how accountability functions in practice. If you want to stay in the loop, understand how the judicial review unfolds, and read developments as they happen, subscribe for free to Lawyers for Animals on Substack. They will be sharing updates as the case progresses. And we’d urge you to follow Camp Beagle on Instagram and support their tireless campaigning. We will continue to update you at key stages as well. The parliamentary debate may be over. The legal challenge has begun. SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing