The London ban on Extinction Rebellion risks a perilous erosion of public trust

Earlier this week, using section 14 of the Public Order Act, the Metropolitan Police effectively banned Extinction Rebellion’s autumn uprising protests from the whole of London. It was a bold and unprecedented move, and it provoked predictably strong reactions. For the home secretary, Priti Patel, it was a justified response to an escalating problem. For Labour’s policing minister, Louise Haigh, it was a “grotesque overreaction and extremely worrying attack on basic civil liberties”.

Short-term policing victories can come at enormous cost. Sir Robert Mark, commissioner of the Met in the 1970s, was fond of pointing out that the secret of policing protests was “winning by appearing to lose”. The danger of something like the London ban is that it can easily become losing by appearing to win.

Such a lesson is not confined to the police. Undeterred by the ban and the mounting numbers of arrests – more than 1,600 at the last count – Extinction Rebellion has continued its protests. Until now it has generally been fairly careful about both its tactics and its targets. The decision by some of its supporters to disrupt the public transport system, targeting ordinary commuters in east London, seemed ill-judged, and largely backfired in the court of public opinion.

We have a long and proud history of protest in this country, from bread rioters and machine breakers to Chartists and suffragettes, from the Jarrow marchers to the Greenham Common peace camp. Their causes were all controversial at the time – and often their tactics were too. Protest is usually by its nature disruptive; it is designed to be so, in order that the message is heard. Consequently, the right to protest is a contingent one. There are other freedoms against which it must be balanced, not least the rights of others to go about their daily lives safely and relatively unhindered.

In the middle of this balancing act stand the police. They have duties both to facilitate protest and to maintain order. Getting the balance right is never straightforward. Criticism of policing comes with the territory, and the section 14 ban is no exception.

There has been no shortage of controversial new policing operations in recent times. Among the most contentious has been kettling – the containment of crowds within a cordon for extended periods of time – which led to legal action and, eventually, all the way to the European court of human rights. The policing of the climate camp and G20 protests in London in 2009 were strongly criticised by the home affairs select committee, among others, as overzealous in their use of force and likely to undermine public trust in policing.

From the student demos in 2010, and alleged over-policing of the Critical Mass activities during the 2012 Olympics, through to the treatment of anti-fracking protesters more recently, the criticisms of policing are varied and widespread.

Some view this week’s Extinction Rebellion ban as part of a longer-term erosion of the right to protest, and a drift toward more restrictive and interventionist policing. There have been worries expressed about the growing use of proactive and intrusive surveillance, including the use of new facial recognition technology. Allegations of the police’s use of undercover agents provocateurs are long-standing, but have been given new impetus from the Guardian’s recent investigations, and are now the subject of an official inquiry. Meanwhile, concerns have been raised over the use of anti-terror laws to deal with peaceful protest, as in the case of the Stansted 15 anti-deportation protesters.

If protesters feel they are under ever greater restrictions, then the police undoubtedly feel they cannot win in all this. Criticism of heavy-handedness is never far away. Equally, we only need go back to the 2011 riots to find the police under severe criticism from political leaders and others for their failure to respond sufficiently robustly. All this must bring us back to the principles of policing protest.

According to the College of Policing, the service’s own professional body, policing strategies should minimise recourse to the use of force, and “policing by consent” should underpin operations. The definition of policing by consent is often in the eye of the beholder, but many look to Sir Robert Peel’s original formulation: to “recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect”.

Related: Extinction Rebellion has built up so much goodwill. It mustn’t throw that away | Gaby Hinsliff

There can be little doubt that the Extinction Rebellion protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. In both its April protests and in the early days of the “autumn uprising” much of the policing was low-key and facilitative, only giving way later to large numbers of arrests and the clearance of some sites.

What sets this week apart, and raises questions of proportionality, is the sudden, quite radical decision to amend section 14 and impose a temporary city-wide ban. The high court has granted Extinction Rebellion permission to challenge the ban, and a judicial review, now under way, will rule on this – most likely at the start of next week. Whatever its decision, the public reception to the Met’s action is of potentially great consequence. A long-established lesson of British public order policing is that maintaining public trust and confidence is vital.

It is a reminder that winning hearts and minds is crucial both in protest and the policing of protest. To forget this is perilous for both.

• Tim Newburn is professor of criminology and social policy at the London School of Economics