What legal charges can UK police bring for unauthorised projections on public buildings?
Executive summary
Unauthorised projections onto public buildings in the UK are primarily treated as breaches of planning and advertising control rather than a stand‑alone new offence, and police can investigate and sometimes arrest where other criminal offences are suspected — for example on suspicion of malicious communications or public order offences as reported in prior projection stunts [1] [2] [3]. Commercial operators and commentators note that many projections sit in a legal grey area: owners’ consent, planning permission and public‑safety considerations determine whether enforcement proceeds via civil planning remedies, fines or criminal charges [4] [5] [6].
1. Planning and advertisement law is the first line of enforcement
Parliamentary authorities and planning experts emphasise that projecting images onto landmark or listed buildings without consent can contravene planning permission and advertisement regulations, because such displays are treated like unauthorised development or advertising that requires prior permission from local planning authorities and, for Parliament buildings, consent from parliamentary authorities [1] [7] [2].
2. Criminal charges invoked in past incidents — malicious communications and related offences
When projections have been treated as public stunts, police have made arrests on criminal grounds: for example, four men were arrested after images were projected on Windsor Castle on suspicion of malicious communications, showing that the police can and do use existing criminal statutes where the content or context of a projection appears to meet an offence’s elements [3].
3. Public order, nuisance and safety considerations can lead to police action
Legal commentary and industry guides warn that projections that alarm the public, create hazards (for example by dazzling road users or causing panic) or amount to harassment can trigger public‑safety or public‑order policing responses; regulators and advertisers are also warned that local authorities may impose fines or intervene where projections create risks to passersby or operations [4] [6].
4. Civil and regulatory remedies are often the practical outcome
Local planning enforcement — including notices, removal orders or seeking injunctions — is commonly the practical route for owners or councils to stop unauthorised projections; councils can use planning enforcement powers and, over longer periods, lawful‑use certificates or S215 notices for adverse impacts on surroundings, making civil processes central to control even where criminal charges are theoretically possible [8] [7].
5. The industry view and legal grey areas: not always “illegal” but risky
Projection companies and campaigners point out that projecting light onto a façade is not automatically criminal and that ownership consent is the primary legal requirement, but they also acknowledge exceptions for protected sites and the practical risks of fines or police disruption — a position that exposes a tension between civil consent/permissions and criminal enforcement in high‑profile or risky stunts [5] [4] [6].
6. Where reporting and statements leave gaps — how enforcement choices are made
Official statements from Parliament stress symbolic protection and planning rules but do not catalogue every criminal charge police might use, while media and industry sources show examples and practical guidance; therefore the exact chargeable offences depend on factors beyond planning breaches — the message projected, any safety or harassment element, whether the site is specially protected — and the sources provided do not supply a definitive list of criminal statutes available to police [1] [2] [3] [5].
Conclusion
In practice, unauthorised projections are most commonly enforced through planning and advertising regulation and civil remedies, but police can and have brought criminal investigations (notably on suspicion of malicious communications and potentially public‑order or safety offences) when the content or context crosses into other statutory harms; the available reporting shows a patchwork of enforcement choices driven by site protection, message content and public‑safety risk rather than a single, specific “projection” offence [1] [2] [3] [8] [4] [5] [6].