“`html
The scenes from last week’s sit-in protest in Parliament Square concerning the banned group Palestine Action were remarkable.
Amidst demonstrators holding placards stating, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action,” approximately 522 individuals were arrested on suspicion of violating terrorism laws – exceeding twice the total number of such arrests made in 2024.
Police reports indicate the average age of those arrested was 54, with 112 individuals over the age of 70.
The controversy surrounding the ban on Palestine Action (PA), proscribed as a terrorist organization in the UK last month, increasingly resembles a political and public relations struggle, in addition to its legal dimensions.
Campaign organizers are attempting to leverage perceived public sympathy by planning another demonstration in September, with the goal of compelling the government to lift the ban through sheer numbers.
What will be the resolution?
Could this become an “I am Spartacus” moment, to quote Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, the Labour peer and civil rights advocate?
The answer hinges on three legal battles, each of which will shape public perception and the legal characterization of Palestine Action.
Let’s begin with the protesters arrested since July for expressing support for the group – totaling over 700 so far.
One lawyer suggests the situation has been uncomfortable for law enforcement.
“I’ve witnessed police officers appearing deeply uneasy about treating these elderly individuals as criminals,” stated solicitor Katie McFadden, who advised numerous protesters following their arrests last Saturday.
“I’ve seen them in police custody, acting considerately and seeming genuinely shocked and horrified that this is part of their job – protecting the public from dangerous criminals.”
The fundamental challenge for law enforcement and prosecutors lies in determining how many protesters to charge with supporting a banned terrorist organization to effectively convey a message to the public. Furthermore, what message is sent if not all are charged?
To date, three individuals have been charged with displaying items indicating support for Palestine Action during the initial demonstration on July 5th. This relatively minor offense will be addressed in court next month.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, consulted with the Attorney General’s Office before proceeding with the charges, owing to additional safeguards in certain terrorism cases.
This implies that Lord Hermer, the Attorney General and a cabinet minister, or a deputy, might need to be involved in each case file submitted by the police to prosecutors.
Consequently, the vast majority of the 700 individuals may remain uncertain for months regarding potential trials, which could be over a year away from reaching a jury if accused of more serious offenses.
Assuming charges are filed, historical precedent suggests a low likelihood of the maximum 14-year sentence being imposed.
Typically, a conviction of this nature could devastate careers and significantly alter lives.
The calculation for some Palestine Action protesters is different.
Many are older individuals who have transitioned from climate change activism and believe the ban infringes upon free speech protections. They seem less concerned about the impact of arrest on their daily routines. They may only face the lesser charge of displaying a sign supporting PAG, which does not even proceed to a Crown Court judge.
Therefore, could the ban on Palestine Action prove to be a legal and public relations setback for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper?
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, stated on social media: “The system can’t cope when thousands resist.”
However, ministers hope that the distinction between the organization she founded and other forms of protest regarding Gaza will become apparent through the second of the three linked legal battles soon to take center stage.
In August 2024, alleged PAG supporters broke into Elbit Systems UK in Bristol, an Israeli defense firm that has long been a key target.
A repurposed prison van breached a security fence, and crowbars and a sledgehammer were allegedly employed to damage equipment.
Three individuals were injured: a security guard and two police officers.
Palestine Action promoted videos of the damage, but not any images of the alleged assaults.
Those allegations will be addressed in a trial starting in November. Approximately 18 individuals deny charges including criminal damage, assault causing actual bodily harm, violent disorder, and aggravated burglary.
That incident prompted national security officials and the police to consider whether a terrorism ban on PAG could be justified, after initially concluding that the majority of its disruptive activities constituted minor criminal damage.
Documents disclosed to the BBC in the High Court reveal how the rationale for a ban evolved. Officials claimed that Palestine Action was becoming increasingly militant and had allegedly produced an “underground manual” detailing how to plan a “break-in,” including the use of face masks, burner phones, and fake car number plates.
“With an efficient sledgehammer in your hand, you can cause quite a bit of damage,” the manual read, before providing specific instructions.
This is where the UK’s broad definition of terrorism comes into play, encompassing not only the threat or use of violence to advance a cause but also acts of serious criminal damage.
This is partly due to the IRA’s past strategy of causing economic damage through bombings, particularly in England in the 1990s, without necessarily intending to cause fatalities.
Therefore, when Cooper banned PAG, her decision was largely based on what the Home Office described as millions of pounds of criminal damage, rather than an assessment that it was a group of murderous militants.
“Proscription pertains to a specific group involved in violent attacks, including injuries, weapons, smoke bombs causing panic among innocent people, and major criminal damage,” the Home Secretary stated following last Saturday’s arrests.
“Some individuals objecting to the proscription may be unaware of the organization’s full nature due to court restrictions on reporting while serious prosecutions are underway, but it’s essential to dispel any doubt that this is not a non-violent organization.”
Ms. Ammori has disputed this characterization, asserting that government documents demonstrate that Palestine Action did not advocate for violence.
This leads to the third significant legal challenge that will determine this matter: Was the Home Secretary justified in her decision?
The High Court will consider this autumn whether the ban was a rational and proportionate response to PAG’s activities.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent watchdog of terrorism laws, previously informed BBC News that the ban is legally sound because the group had transitioned from protest to what effectively constitutes “blackmail,” suggesting it was exerting pressure to achieve its objectives.
However, Ms. Ammori’s legal team possesses a range of compelling arguments related to freedom of protest.
Volker Turk, the United Nations’ human rights chief, has also weighed in, asserting that the ban is so flawed that it places the UK in violation of international law.
The outcome of that case will determine whether Palestine Action remains banned. If the ban is overturned, the 700 individuals arrested thus far will be exonerated, and their cases will collapse. As for the group itself, it may feel emboldened but will understand that it could be banned again if its actions violate terrorism laws.
If the ban is upheld, the government will have the advantage, and arrests and charges will continue.
This reflects the approach of counter-terrorism policing: slowly but surely, step by step, seeking to contain and, ultimately, quell the threat.
Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.
More than 100 aid organisations say they are increasingly being told they are “not authorised” to deliver supplies.
Mediators say a deal can be pushed through in the weeks before Israel’s planned expansion of the war.
Israel says it targeted correspondent Anas al-Sharif, accusing him of leading a Hamas cell, which he had denied. Israel provided little evidence for the claim.
Defending the group’s proscription under terror law, she said the organisation was “not a non-violent organisation”.
Albanese had earlier said Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly.
“`