Anti-war protester Brian Haw yesterday won his High Court battle against new laws threatening to end his 24-hour vigil outside Parliament, which has now gone on for four years.
The court ruled that legislation being brought in to control demonstrations around the Houses of Parliament did not apply to 56-year-old Mr Haw.
New rules state that, from August 1, anyone wanting to demonstrate in the area must have authorisation from the police "when the demonstration starts."
Lawyers for Mr Haw - a carpenter-turned-campaigner from Redditch, Worcestershire - pointed out his demonstration had actually "started" in 2001 and therefore he did not have to apply for authorisation, even though the law was actually targeted at him.
Allowing his application for judicial review, Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Mr Justice McCombe and Mr Justice Simon, said the new law did not catch Mr Haw because of a drafting error.
She said: "If Parliament wishes to criminalise any particular activity, it must do so in clear terms. If it wishes to do so, Parliament can amend this Act."
Yesterday's courtroom triumph for Mr Haw is likely, unless overturned on appeal, to embarrass the Government.
Critics have attacked the 2005 Act as "rushed and inept."
When the clampdown on demonstrations near the Houses of Parliament was first under discussion, the then home secretary David Blunkett conceded that it was a "hammer to crack a nut".
But Mr Blunkett said he thought it was sometimes necessary to take tough measures when people were "making a monkey" out of existing rules.
Mr Haw has frequently used a megaphone to attack Government policy in Iraq, and some MPs have accused him of disrupting their work with his noise.
Yesterday's ruling adds to Mr Haw's legal success.
In 2002 Westminster Council failed to evict him after High Court judge Mr Justice Gray refused to grant an injunction preventing him obstructing the pavements.
Mr Haw won by a 2-1 majority. The Home Secretary was refused permission to appeal, but can still apply directly to the Court of Appeal.
He then won the quashing of those parts of the order - known as a commencement order - which aimed to extend the scope of the 2005 Act to cover continuing demonstrations.
Mr Haw was also granted a declaration that he is not required to seek authorisation to continue his marathon protest.
Outside court, a smiling Mr Haw said he would continue his demonstration "for as long as it takes."
He said: "God bless the judges. Let them have a good holiday. They work hard, don't they?"
Mr Haw said that after years of protesting, 24 hours a day, seven days a week - amounting to 1,517 days and nights - he was feeling "tired" but would not take a break.
"I am tired. Can you imagine how I feel when people drive by and say 'Get a job'? Excuse me, 24 hours a day for over four years?
"Yes, I would like a holiday, but I have no choice. What about our soldiers in Iraq? Do they have any choice?
"I am gutted because people are still dying. Politicians have gone on holiday. The noble lady and gentlemen who delivered this good verdict today are going off for a well-deserved break, but the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are still dying in these war-torn countries."
He added: "It has got to stop. I can't stop until that stops."
Mr Haw's solicitor David Thomas, of law firm Bindman & Partners, welcomed the judge's decision.
He said: "Obviously we are very pleased that the majority of judges accepted the interpretation of the law we had contended for all along.
"It is clearly embarrassing for the Government if they intended to catch Brian's demonstration, and that was their position in court.
"Clearly they drafted the legislation very badly. We are very happy that the court has upheld the very important principle that, if you are legislating for a criminal offence, you have to be absolutely clear about what you are doing.
"Otherwise, how is the citizen to know what they are doing is legal or not?"