Human Rights Watch submission to the CERD Committee

Windrush Generation (Para 52) 

During the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination's (CERD) consideration of the UK combined twenty-fourth to twenty sixth periodic reports in August 2024, the UK government committed to "putting right the injustices of the Windrush issue."[1] Human Rights Watch welcomes this commitment and urges the Committee to hold the state party to it in full.

Human Rights Watch welcomes the UK government’s October 2025 reforms to the compensation scheme, especially that older claimants are prioritized given that many have died before receiving compensation.[2] While recent reforms are welcome, the measures adopted to date do not meet the threshold of an effective, adequate, and prompt remedy required under ICERD and the Committee's recommendations in its 2024 Concluding Observations.

The Committee's 2024 recommendation that the State party accept and implement all 30 recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review 2020 remains substantially unaddressed. Human Rights Watch raised the same concern in its 2024 submission to the UN Human Rights Committee regarding the UK’s ICCPR review, noting the previous government's failure to honor the Review's recommendations, including on reforming the hostile environment policy and addressing institutional racial bias within the Home Office.[3]

Additionally, claimants still need access to free legal representation to receive full and fair compensation—and to speed up the compensation process to avoid several years of appeals against arbitrarily low initial compensation offers from the Home Office.

Contrary to claims made in the state party's follow-up report,[4] the Windrush Compensation Scheme is too complex for claimants to navigate without free legal representation.

The application form for primary applicants is 34 pages long and requires substantive evidence of losses and what it calls “impact on life” that claimants can demonstrate is linked to living without papers showing their lawful status.[5] The amount and type of evidence that is asked from claimants is unmanageable for many claimants. Primary and close relative claimants as well as lawyers assisting Windrush claimants told Human Rights Watch that legal representation was necessary to access the scheme because of the complexity of the application process.[6]

The state party's reference to case law to support its position that claimants are not required to argue complex points of law pertains to Oji, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework [2024] EWHC 1281 (Admin), a decision that is currently under appeal and cannot be treated as settled authority.[7] Moreover, the legal complexity of a claim is not the only measure of the need for representation.

The UK Charity JUSTICE's June 2025 review of 17 Windrush compensation cases found that compensation offers increased significantly where claimants had the support of a lawyer.[8]

Lawyers are helpful not only where required to argue points of law, but also to gather and present evidence effectively, and to counter arbitrary decisions from the Home Office, which, as the ombudsman also stated in its decision regarding a complaint from a Windrush family, were not uncommon.[9] Lawyers told Human Rights Watch that free legal representation protected claimants from the Home Office’s frequent failures to apply own guidance or to consider claimants’ evidence.[10]

As it was the Home Office who wronged claimants in the first instance, claimants described accessing the compensation scheme a retraumatizing experience but free legal representation provided the necessary support to access their right to a remedy.[11]

The advocacy fund and support from the claims assistance provider ‘We Are Group’ mentioned in the UK’s follow up report do not replace free legal representation by a lawyer.

In April 2025, the UK government announced a £1.5 million advocacy fund for community groups to support Windrush claimants in their pursuit for compensation.[12] While this support to grassroots groups that support claimants is welcome, this support does not replace free legal representation by a lawyer.

This fund falls short of long-standing demands for claimants’ access to free legal representation.[13] In its response to Human Rights Watch on 15 May 2025, the Home Office referred to the advocacy fund and said it had no plans to provide individual legal aid for Windrush claimants.

Neither the Home Office-funded We Are Group service nor the Home Office's own Windrush Help Team helpline constitutes a substitute for free legal representation. The ‘We Are Group’ service funded by the Home Office does not provide the same assistance that a lawyer provides to claimants – including legal advice and being able to tell their story to someone who believes and wants to help them. The operators of these services are not lawyers and cannot provide legal advice. They don’t help claimants to gather evidence and provide them with the support that a lawyer does.  

The Committee should recommend that the government:

• Given that the government's advocacy fund and We Are Group claims assistance service do not constitute legal representation and cannot substitute for it, provide free, independent legal representation to all Windrush compensation claimants, in line with the right to a fair, prompt, and effective remedy;
• Set out a clear, time-bound plan for implementing all 30 recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review 2020, including on hostile environment reforms and institutional culture change within the Home Office.

Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (Paragraph 30) and Counterterrorism (Para 34)

The UK has increasingly restricted the right to peaceful assembly over recent years, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023, and most recently the Crime and Policing Act 2026. These restrictions may have a disproportionate impact on racialized communities and risk undermining the right to protest without discrimination, as guaranteed under ICERD and reflected in the Committee's 2024 recommendations. Rather than reversing course following the Committee's concluding observations, the government has continued to expand the legislative framework for restricting protest, while senior officials have made public statements threatening further restrictions.

The government's Independent Review on Public Order and Hate Crime Legislation, while welcome, omits the government’s use of counter-terrorism powers, which has been a significant component of its response to recent protests.

The use of counter-terrorism powers against protest groups raises concerns under ICERD Article 5(d)(ix), which protects the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association without distinction as to race or ethnic origin.

The government's proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 illustrates the misuse of counter-terrorism powers to suppress legitimate protest activity. On 4 February 2026, the UK High Court found this proscription unlawful, and the government has been granted permission to appeal the decision.[14] The proscription has been critiqued by many, including by a number of UN Special Rapporteurs, as a misuse of counter terrorism laws, and there is growing concern about the over 2,700 peaceful protesters who have been arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, most for peacefully holding signs reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”[15] We are concerned that these arrests may have a wider chilling effect on the right to peaceful assembly, disproportionately affecting those who wish to express solidarity with the Palestinian people, many of whom come from Arab, Muslim and South Asian communities.  

The application of counter-terrorism powers against Palestine Action activists also raises concerns regarding the right to liberty and fair trial guarantees under international human rights law. We note that a number of Palestine Action activists were arrested under counterterrorism legislation, and prosecutors are pursuing an alleged “terrorism connection,” which must be treated as an aggravating factor and stated in open court.[16]

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 further restricts the right to protest

Rather than change course after the immense criticism, detailed in our report,[17] in the wake of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023, some which came from this Committee, the government has doubled down by introducing further restrictions on protest in the new Crime and Policing Act 2026, which recently received royal assent. Each of the provisions discussed below raises concerns under ICERD Article 5(d)(ix) on the right to peaceful assembly, and where their impact falls disproportionately on racialized communities, engages the state party's obligations under ICERD Articles 2 and 5 to guarantee rights without discrimination.

These include measures to impose a blanket ban on face masks at protests, which includes no exception for individuals fearing transnational repression. This concern is compounded by the increasing use of live facial recognition technology by UK police forces at protests and public gatherings, which Human Rights Watch has previously raised in its submission to the UN Human Rights Committee regarding the UK’s ICCPR review.[18] UK police forces are increasingly using live facial recognition technology to monitor peaceful gatherings, from Notting Hill Carnival to the coronation of King Charles III.[19] Northamptonshire Police used live facial recognition technology at the 2023 Formula 1 Grand Prix, seemingly in an attempt to deter and monitor environmental protests at the event.[20] According to Home Office commissioned research, facial recognition technology produces a far higher rate of false positives for black (5.5 %) and Asian (4.0 %) faces than for white faces (0.04 %) at certain settings. The Guardian also reported in February 2026 on an Asian man who was arrested for a robbery in a city he had never visited, after a false positive facial ID made using a mugshot from another crime he was falsely arrested for years prior. Human Rights Watch calls for a ban on the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces, as it undermines privacy rights, and poses a serious risk to non-discrimination, freedom of expression, assembly and association rights.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 also includes a provision to further restrict gatherings in the vicinity of places of worship. While authorities have cited the attack on a synagogue in Manchester in October 2025 and attacks on mosques in 2024 and 2025 as context for this provision, existing criminal law provides sufficient powers to address both issues while respecting rights.

The evidential basis for this provision is undermined by the fact that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), organizers of the largest pro-Palestine protests in the UK, assert,[21] and the government has not contested, that in the 26 months from October 2023 to December 2025, there was no threat to any place of worship linked to their protests. In cases where Jewish communities expressed concern to police, PSC has actively responded by proposing to reroute marches or move their timing not to coincide with religious services.[22] PSC further asserts that none of its marches or proposed march routes has ever targeted a synagogue or even passed directly by one.[23]  

The UK also has an obligation under domestic and international law to protect the right of people to protest. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which enshrines the right to peaceful assembly–are incorporated into domestic law via the Human Rights Act 1998. Those treaties provide that the UK not only has an obligation to tolerate peaceful protest, but also to facilitate and protect protest. Any restrictions to protest must be narrowly drawn, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate to that aim. Blanket bans on protests are disproportionate and unjustifiable.

As the Special Rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism has noted, the emotive perceptions of a particular group, or members of a particular group, may not always provide a reasonable assessment of the existence of harassment, intimidation, violence, or fear for safety, particularly where disagreeable political criticisms are conflated with attacks on the group rather than the political causes with which they may closely identify.[24]

One of the most troubling provisions of this new law, introduced by the government late in the legislative process, is a clause allowing police to restrict protests based on the “cumulative disruption” caused by other protests in a given area. This means that protests don’t need to be connected to be restricted. In theory, a climate protest could be curtailed because of disruption caused by an unrelated anti-war march days earlier. This effectively permits the state to limit people’s rights based on the actions of entirely separate groups and events. Even if protests are linked, decisions to restrict freedom of expression and peaceful assembly should be made on a case-by-case basis. This law leaves the door open for officials to impose arbitrary restrictions on protest without any clear, individualized assessment of necessity and proportionality.

The new cumulative disruption provision also provides no definition of what constitutes “an area.” In practice, this could allow police to shut down protests across large parts of London or other cities in England and Wales and again raises concerns about arbitrary decision making and discretionary enforcement. Furthermore, the absence of a definition raises concerns about the requirements of legal certainty and foreseeability under international human rights law.

The cumulative disruption provision is further concerning in light of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s comments on 3 May that appear to suggest this provision should be used to put a blanket ban on certain slogans, and ban certain Pro Palestine protests altogether.[25]

Human Rights Watch notes that a Lords amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill proposed an "Extreme Criminal Protest Group" designation, effectively criminalizing membership and organizing for groups engaging in criminal damage for political ends. While the government did not support this amendment at the time, citing the pending independent review,[26] the Committee should make clear, in light of the Prime Minister's recent comments, that introducing any such designation would be incompatible with international human rights standards on the right to peaceful assembly.

The Committee should recommend that the government:

• Legislation
  • Repeal or substantially amend protest-related provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 that unduly restrict peaceful protest, including sections 73 and 74 of the PCSC Act 2022, sections 1 and 2 and sections 20-33 of the Public Order Act 2023, the rationale for which is laid out in detail in our report;[27]
  • Repeal the face covering, house of worship, and cumulative disruption provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which are overly broad, lack individualized necessity and proportionality assessments, and risk disproportionate impact on racialized communities;
  • Refrain from introducing any further restrictions on peaceful protest, including any "Extreme Criminal Protest Group" designation or equivalent measure;
  • Enact a statutory right to protest setting out the negative and positive obligations of the State in relation to protest, as recommended by the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights;
• Enforcement
  • Launch an independent review of the Metropolitan Police's conduct in policing protests, with clear findings and recommendations on best practice for policing in a manner that protects freedom of assembly and expression;
  • Stop the use of facial recognition and other mass surveillance technologies by law enforcement agencies at protests, in order to safeguard privacy, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, association, and assembly rights for protesters.
• Review and Oversight
  • Accept the country visit requests submitted by the UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association, and by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders; Invite the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression to conduct a country visit;