The role of pressure groups and charities in the protection of rights

This article was written by Jojo Mooc, a first-year LLB student at the LSE and Communications Officer for the Website & Blog of the LSESU Pro Bono Division of the Law Society.

Whilst the archetypal image of interest groups turning to litigation seems more in line with American ideals, it is perhaps forgotten that UK groups also engage in this type of action. One justification of this may stem from the fact that the landscape of the UK is shaped by political constitutionalism - courts cannot strike down Acts of Parliament by reference to a higher constitutional law as in America, which is governing-text constitutionalist. However, that is not to say that judicial review is ineffective. Although it is important to protect the rights of the individual who may otherwise be unable to access them, more profound are the cases which secure rights for whole classes of people, serving the public interest. 

Case studies 

Pressure groups and charities rely on several means to fund their involvement in litigation. Three of these are: charitable donations, pro bono work and crowdfunding, as will be demonstrated in the below case studies. 

One of the leading pressure groups on human rights is Liberty, which engages in primary litigation. John Walker challenged a discriminatory provision in the Equality Act 2010. If Walker was in a heterosexual relationship, his partner would have received £45,000 a year for the rest of their life upon Walker’s death, but due to his sexuality, his partner would only receive a few thousand under the discriminatory law. Walker v Innospec Ltd [2017] was only able to eventually culminate in being brought before the Supreme Court due to the group taking John Walker’s case up.Demonstrably, just because a statute is named ‘equality’ does not mean it truly perpetuates the idealised version of it either de jure, de facto or both. It was held that Paragraph 18 of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, which permitted occupational pension schemes to restrict survivor benefits for same-sex spouses/civil partners to service accrued after 5 December 2005 was incompatible with EU Law. As this equality of pension rights was codified in the Equality Act, it still applies post Brexit and has the potential to impact thousands of couples. If it were not for Liberty facilitating this litigation, such a pertinent issue would not be heard. It was due to the high-profile nature of the pressure group that this case was able to attract donors (the Michael Bishop Foundation and Lord Glendonbrook). Given the lengthy nature of the litigation (five years), it would have been impossible for Mr Walker to have the institutional knowledge and the funds to sustain the litigation if not for Liberty’s aid. 

More recently, the collective right to protest (article 11, freedom of peaceful assembly and protest) was protected in (Liberty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025], which challenged Braverman’s use of Henry VIII powers. Such powers mean that a minister can use secondary legislation to modify primary legislation, bypassing the process of parliamentary scrutiny. Braverman sought to amend the Public Order Act 2023 to redefine ‘serious disruption’ to mean ‘more than minor’- two seemingly incongruous terms- so police could intervene in protests more easily. This was largely in response to the environmentalist demonstrations which led to disruption on motorways, and public spaces. It is clear that the government sought to uphold order maintenance, as opposed to the rights protection model of public order. Apart from primary litigation, another way of involvement is through third party interventions. The Public Law Project intervened in this case, arguing that the government’s use of statutory instruments was ultra vires. They relied on the pro bono work of Blackstone Chambers and Herbert Smith Freehills to represent them. Here, this is a collaboration between a pressure group and charity in order to ensure the most holistic arguments are put forward. Even though Liberty is characterised as an outsider pressure group (one which may not have direct links to Whitehall), it does not necessarily mean that it is ineffective in seeking policy changes. Organised cause groups can help to change the moral fabric of society for the better in a more efficient way due to institutional knowledge or greater access to resources. Indeed, for judicial review which is underpinned by broad policy challenges, pressure groups are better placed for these matters once standing is granted. 

Another charity which leverages third-party interventions more regularly is JUSTICE (a charity which seeks to strengthen the rule of law and the protection of human rights), which relies on the pro bono work of Freshfields and Blackstone Chambers. A recent case in which they intervened was U3 (AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] which concerned the Special Immigration Appeals Commission’s fact finding decisions. JUSTICE submitted that appeals should be allowed even if the decision of the minister is not wholly irrational, and that article 6 (right to a fair trial) is undermined when there is a denial of a hearing to tell their side of the story. Ultimately, on proportionality review, U3 lost, as the threat of national security outweighed the right to private life under article 8. This highlights the vital role of pro bono which is utilised by pressure groups and charities in order to engage in public interest cases which have the potential, even if they may not necessarily always be vindicated to change the law to serve marginalised groups. 

For Women Scotland (proponents of women’s and children’s rights) relied on crowd funding (via Crowd Justice) in order to initiate the challenge of the definition of a woman to the Inner House, where they raised £196,815. One of the largest private donors was JK Rowling, who donated £70,000 to the cause. They contended that the Scottish government’s definition of woman should not include trans women. Whilst there was initial agreement from the Inner House, the subsequent legislative changes which meant that trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate could be recognised as women were regarded as satisfactory by the CA. This culminated in the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) [2025] that the protected characteristic of gender in the Equality Act 2010 meant that of a ‘biological’ man or woman, and that the Scottish Parliament went beyond their powers in legislating otherwise. It seems that the trade off for a pluralist democracy is the fact that some cause groups can advocate for policies or legislative changes which go against the progressive grain of society, which not all groups would regard as a positive development. Tensions have arisen between different interest groups (women’s rights groups and transgender rights groups), but the one which prevails need not necessarily be the one which reflects the status quo; it may challenge the discriminatory nature of legislation or prevent others from accessing or being entitled to their rights. Here, the rights of transgender people were undermined, highlighting how litigation may not be able to serve the interests of every different class of people. 

Limitations to such processes of litigation 

Whilst pressure groups may serve as a tool to protect rights, some may question the democratic legitimacy of such groups. Unlike elected representatives, they do not have a mandate to carry out their functions. However, the specialised nature of the groups means they may be the most well placed to conduct court interventions. Furthermore, it is arguable that pressure groups exist exactly for this reason: to repair the void that exists due to the prohibitive nature of judicial review proceedings on the individual, and to represent voices which feel unheard. Moreover, in terms of primary litigation, there can only be an uptake of cases which have a high likelihood of succeeding, meaning that there are many cases which may deserve to be heard, but denied the platform. 

There also exist limitations to funding litigation. Pressure groups and charities may rely heavily on gratuitous donations to start proceedings, insofar urgent, or high importance cases are not heard sooner. Established pressure groups face less hurdles, and indeed, the above groups discussed are those which are well regarded. This means that emerging pressure groups may have more institutional and resource struggle if they are less well-received, and may be less able to rely on public donations, such as crowdfunding. Lastly, the status of pro bono work remains uncertain, with law firms struggling to meet demand following cuts to legal aid. 

Conclusion

Whilst there exist limitations to this form of cause group action, this does not detract from the successful litigious action which such groups have participated in and facilitated. The diversity of pressure groups demonstrates the multifaceted views that need representing.Ultimately, they provide a platform in order to protect rights and fill the justice gap which is perpetuated by the costly aspect of litigation.