UK mass crackdown on Palestine activism has brought chaos to the courts
Submitted by John Rees on Wed, 04/01/2026 - 21:40
As hundreds of cases grind through the system, high-profile activists are seeing their charges dismissed or rejected
Protesters hold placards at a demonstration against the British government’s ban on Palestine Action, at Trafalgar Square in London on 4 October 2025 (Reuters) On The conviction of two leaders of the Palestine solidarity movement, Chris Nineham, the vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition, and Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, for breaching police conditions as organisers of a peaceful Palestine protest has been widely seen as a direct assault on the right to protest.
But it’s far from the only case of its kind. In fact state overreach is causing confusion in the UK court system, as it struggles to cope with hundreds of cases brought under the Public Order Act and anti-terrorism legislation.
The tsunami is the result of a wave of demonstrators being charged with offences linked to their participation in pro-Palestine protests since October 2023, compounded by the proscription of Palestine Action last year.
In some cases, courts are simply refusing to convict. A number of pro-Palestinian activists have been found not guilty, either fully or on key charges. Other cases have been dismissed or ruled unlawful.
In the Filton Six case, concerning a 2024 break-in by Palestine Action activists at an Elbit Systems factory, the defendants were found not guilty of aggravated burglary, the most serious charge they faced. The jury failed to reach a verdict on other charges. As a result, prosecutors later dropped the same burglary charge against 18 related defendants.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Last month, the government lost its appeal against the dismissal of a terrorism charge against Mo Chara of the Irish rap group Kneecap for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at a concert. The charge was originally ruled “unlawful” and “null”. On appeal, the court agreed that the charge had been brought outside of the six-month time limit.
Then, in a crown court in Bristol, a jury found a pro-Palestine activist not guilty of supporting Hamas in a speech she gave at a demonstration in Cardiff. In legal directions before the jury retired to consider the verdict, the judge said they had to be sure that the defendant’s comments were “objectively supportive of Hamas”. The jury decided that this was not the case.
Potentially most seriously of all, the High Court ruled illegal the government’s decision to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. The government is contesting this decision, so the legality of the ban still lies in the balance.
Tip of the iceberg
It is by no means the case, however, that the courts have been universally on the side of pro-Palestine demonstrators; indeed, there have also been a significant number of findings of guilt.
Five activists were found guilty of damaging a weapons factory in Glasgow, and handed jail sentences ranging from 12 to 14 months.
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Analysis of the Metropolitan Police’s arrest data by Netpol shows that between 14 October 2023 and 31 March 2024, there were 305 arrests of which almost half (44 percent) immediately resulted in no further action. Of the total arrests, only 45 were for racially or religiously aggravated offences, with only 11 resulting in an immediate charge; 15 arrests were made for terrorism offences.
When all is said and done, best estimates are that around 2,000 defendants will pass through the courts
In general, convictions are more likely when defendants admit to property damage, there is evidence of planning or coordination, and charges are framed as ordinary criminal offences. What tends to lead to acquittal is the court reacting to prosecutorial overreach, either through the use of terrorism laws or inflated charges such as aggravated burglary, or where there is weak evidence of intent to harm people.
Also crucial is the potential for juries to be sympathetic towards protesters. This is precisely why the government is keen to avoid charges that bring defendants in front of a jury, and to limit the cases that can go to trial by jury.
The aforementioned cases, whatever their outcomes, are only the tip of a very large iceberg. There are no reliable statistics on the total number of Palestine solidarity cases still waiting to go to court, but the figure is huge - and it includes some very important cases, like the remainder of the Elbit defendants, and a group of activists charged with spray-painting military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. These will not likely see the inside of a courtroom until 2027.
There is also a wider pipeline of arrests feeding into prosecutions, with thousands of people still waiting to see if they are ever charged and brought to trial. When all is said and done, best estimates are that around 2,000 defendants could pass through the courts.
Raw politics
Beyond the statistics of the clampdown on protests are the raw politics of the process. This was recently laid bare in the landmark trial of two leaders of the Palestine solidarity movement, PSC's Jamal and Stop the War's Nineham.
Jamal and Nineham were found guilty on Wednesday of breaching protest conditions during a pro-Palestine demonstration in London last year. Those conditions banned the march from assembling at BBC headquarters, with police saying it was too close to a local synagogue.
Who are Palestine Action? Read More »
During the trial, evidence emerged that police commander Adam Slonecki had met with a number of pro-Israel groups after receiving a letter from the Jewish Leadership Council, which threatened a judicial review if protest conditions were not imposed. When police imposed the ban, requiring an alternative protest route, Jewish community leaders applauded them.
I was reporting from the court when it emerged that the police were so keen to accommodate pro-Israel members of the Jewish community that they refused to meet Jewish representatives who supported the Palestinian cause.
So dismissive were police of the pro-Palestinian viewpoint that Slonecki acknowledged in court that he had never heard of the Nakba, the original 1948 Palestinian dispossession, and did not know what the term meant. There were gasps from the public gallery when he gave that reply.
Yet into these hands - those of senior officers in a force that has been found to be institutionally racist in multiple official inquiries - has been placed the power to determine the boundaries of the public’s right to protest.
I have reached out to the Metropolitan Police for a comment. The response from the press office was "we have nothing to add".
The conviction of Nineham and Jamal will be appealed. But while that happens two more leaders of the anti-war movement, CND general secretary Sophie Bolt, and Stop the War Coalition chair, Alex Kenny, will face prosecution on charges arising from the same Palestine demonstration.
In all, this marks the single most sustained legal offensive against leaders of social movements since at least the 1950s. The fight to defend civil liberties will be sustained in the courts, but can only really be won in the streets. The only sure way to defend the right to protest is by exercising it.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Human Rights Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29
Update Date Override 0
