Pro Bono & The Right to Protest: Liberty v Home Secretary

11 February 2025

This event explored the role of pro bono in defending civil liberties, focusing on the case of Liberty v Home Secretary (2024). The discussion mainly examined how public interest litigation can be used to challenge government overreach and protect the right to protest, as well as broader pro bono opportunities at Herbert Smith Freehills with our incredible guest speaker, David de Lisle.

Key Highlights:

Speaker: Daniel de Lisle, an associate at Herbert Smith Freehills who worked pro bono for the Public Law Project, an intervenor in the Liberty v Home Secretary case.
Topics Discussed: Judicial Review & Protest Rights, Legal & Political Risks, Litigating Against the Government, Career & Pro Bono Opportunities
Audience: The event attracted a diverse audience, including non-law students and students interested in human right law. Attendees engaged in a Q&A session.

Noteworthy Moments:

Systematic Reliance on Individual Applicants: Public law litigation often depends on individual claimants challenging government action, which can limit access to justice. In this case, the Public Law Project provided essential support, but many similar cases never reach court due to lack of legal resources. Pro bono assistance can be the deciding factor—without it, this challenge would not have been possible.
Financial Risks & Costs of Losing: Legal charities must carefully assess financial risks before bringing cases. In this case, the court intervened to cap potential costs, ensuring the case could proceed without catastrophic financial consequences.
Government Power to Override Court Decisions: Even when a case successfully challenges government action, Parliament can respond by passing new primary legislation to override the ruling. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of judicial review in curbing executive overreach. The ruling in Liberty’s favour was important, but the government retains the political power to reinstate restrictions through legislative means.
Pro Bono Should Not Replace Proper Legal Aid: Pro bono work plays a critical role in ensuring access to justice, but it should not be a substitute for a well-funded legal aid system. Legal aid should be the default standard. Pro bono should only step in where legal aid is inadequate or unavailable. Relying on pro bono alone is not sustainable, systemic reform is needed to ensure equitable access to justice for all.

Impact & Takeaways:

Understanding Judicial Review & Protest Rights – Attendees learned how judicial review can challenge government overreach, particularly in cases involving restrictions on protest rights. The case illustrated the limits of executive power and the importance of procedural fairness in lawmaking.
Legal Risks in Public Interest Litigation – The event highlighted the financial and political risks of challenging government policies, including cost implications for legal charities and the reality that Parliament can override court rulings through new legislation.
The Role of Pro Bono vs. Legal Aid – Attendees engaged in discussions on whether pro bono work is sustainable and learned that while pro bono support is critical, it should not replace a properly funded legal aid system.
Practical Insights into Pro Bono Work – The session provided a firsthand perspective from a lawyer involved in the case, detailing the challenges of litigating against the government, the strategic considerations behind bringing a case, and the impact of pro bono intervention.
Opportunities for Involvement – Attendees learned about HSF’s pro bono initiatives, including legal clinics, strategic litigation projects, and ways to contribute to public interest law.