Stay Silent or Be Silenced? – Mass Arrests at London Protest Over Proscribed Group Palestine Action:
On 5 July 2025, the UK government proscribed the activist group Palestine Action (as well as 2 other groups, the Maniacs Murder Cult (MMC) and the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM)) under the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription is a significant legal measure that makes it a criminal offence to belong to, support, or display material in support of the named organisation. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. The decision followed advice from the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre (JTAC) which is based within MI5, which concluded that the group’s activities, including property damage to arms factories, met the statutory criteria for proscription.
On 9 August 2025, hundreds of protesters assembled in Parliament Square to oppose the ban, many carrying placards stating: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” According to the Metropolitan Police, 466 people were arrested that day under the Terrorism Act for offences related to showing support for the proscribed organisation. A further eight arrests were made for unrelated offences such as assaulting police officers.
By 10 August, the number of arrests had risen to 522, the largest number ever recorded at a single protest in London. Nearly half of those detained were aged 60 or above, including about 100 people in their 70s and 15 in their 80s. Notable detainees included environmentalist Sir Jonathan Porritt, aged 75, who publicly criticised the government’s approach. The arrests also included a wheelchair bound, blind man.
Following arrest, most individuals were released on street bail under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), often with bail conditions preventing attendance at future Palestine Action protests. Under PACE Code G, an arrest must be necessary for reasons such as preventing further offences or allowing prompt and effective investigation. The subsequent bail process, governed by PACE sections 30A–30D, permits police to impose conditions if necessary to protect public safety, prevent interference with witnesses, or avert further offences. All arrests are currently under review, and any prosecutions would be brought under the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the proscription and the police operation, stating that the measures were proportionate and in the interest of public safety. She cited JTAC’s assessment that the group’s tactics carried a risk of serious property damage and potential harm.
Civil liberties organisations, including Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have raised concerns about the proportionality of the arrests and the implications for Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 11 freedom of assembly of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998. Several UN officials have also criticised the scale of the enforcement action, warning of potential “chilling effects” on lawful political expression.
This situation highlights the legal tension between the state’s duty to protect the public from terrorism-related risks and the obligation to uphold fundamental rights. The eventual judicial outcomes whether through criminal trials or potential judicial review of the proscription decision may provide important case law on the interpretation of the Terrorism Act in protest contexts and the boundaries of police powers under PACE.
The right to free speech and peaceful assembly are fundamental in a democratic society. While these rights are not absolute, any restrictions imposed by the state must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Anyone who has been affected by these recent arrests whether through detention, bail conditions, or potential prosecution should seek immediate legal advice. Our firm is experienced in challenging unlawful arrests, defending terrorism-related charges, and taking action against the police, and we encourage individuals affected to contact us without delay.