The Unlawful Arrest of the Defend Our Juries Palestine Activists

Seems like the UK police don't know the law. Shocker.

It seems that the mass arrest of retirees under section s. 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was completely unlawful.

Let me explain.

Section 13 of the Act says:

(1)A person in a public place commits an offence if he—

(a)wears an item of clothing, or

(b)wears, carries or displays an article,

in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

This section carries a maximum prison sentence of 6 months.

Under s.13, the police need ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person carrying their placard is a ‘member’ or ‘supporter’ of a proscribed organisation.

Well, we know that the majority of arrestees cannot be members of Palestine Action. Palestine Action - now proscribed – was a direct action group hitting the weapons supply chain of Israel as it commits its ongoing genocide and starvation of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

As 50% were over 60, a hundred over 70, and many unable to walk unaided, it’s completely unrealistic to believe these people can be members of a direct action group requiring mobility, agility and a degree of physical fitness.

Thus, it’s clear they were not members, and no reasonable suspicion can possibly exist that they were members.

So let’s turn to the second part of the section. This is where the protestors would have to be holding a sign “in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a…supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

Here, the police fail again. The protest was a political protest in Parliament Square and was not intended to encourage support for Palestine Action, as had it been for that purpose, the police would have been arresting protestors under the far more draconian s. 12 of the Act, which invites a far longer prison sentence (up to 14 years). The fact that the police didn’t use this provision is tacit admission that the protestors weren’t aiming to elicit support for Palestine Action. In other words, the police knew that the protest was political and the intention was to make a statement to the government, not to show that they were supporters of a proscribed organisation.

In fact, the police knew more than this. They knew the mens rea - intention - of the protestors entirely, because the protestors put it publicly on their website. Here it is:

The protestors’ intentions were clear: they weren’t supporting Palestine Action, they were supporting Palestine Action’s right to continue as a direct action group. The protest was to protect democracy, freedom of expression, and against executive overreach in setting a precedent that may lead to the banning of other non-violent, direct action protest groups. Their website states clearly:

The objective of this campaign is to Lift the Ban on Palestine Action, i.e. for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed as a ‘terrorist organisation’.

As Clive Stafford Smith explained in his article, “Supporting Palestine Action’s right to protest is not the same as supporting Palestine Action.”

The protestors were doing the former - supporting Palestine Action’s right to protest. They made it clear on their website. As such, the police cannot claim to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they were a ‘supporter’ of a proscribed organisation.

What’s more, however, is that the police seem to have attempted to tamper with this evidence of intent. Prior to the 9 August protest, the Defend our Juries website was taken down:

Not only that, but prior to the action planned for 6 September, Zoom, at the request of the Met Police, took down the Defend Our Juries briefing call, twice:

The purpose of the police is that they police by consent. They are not allowed to take instructions from the executive - i.e. the government - and they can only police according to the law.

That is clearly not happening. The police are not following the law, they seem to be tampering with evidence and they seem to be taking instructions from the government to oppress people in their constitutional rights to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Unlawfully arresting people at the behest of a government is not legal: it transforms the police from a legitimate force to brown shirts, such as illegally disrupting protests against the government, and intimidating British citizens in their exercise of freedom of speech against British complicity in Israeli genocide.