Why I think Defend Our Juries Seems to Be a Psyop to Shut Down the Palestinian Movement in the UK for Good

(Hey, it's just an opinion, they're still legal!)

Just so it’s clear from the start: this is an opinion piece. Anyone joining the DoJ protest is free to make their own choices — (though I’d suggest reading the below first!)

There is one thing with the pro Palestine movement in the UK which is a bit problematic. It often relies on bandwagonning. When a mass call goes out and many people join, anyone who does not support the same action or raises concerns is quickly shut down. I have long thought this was due to bad faith actors in public spaces, but it also comes from a huge load of cognitive dissonance and the black hole effect: the idea that once you have started something, you must continue with it even though it’s now become clear that any further time or investment into it will be sucked up like a black hole, and there is no benefit to be gained. A big problem, is due to the excitement of the ‘next big thing,’ people do not always check the background before committing to it. They feel there is safety in numbers, and they rely on that instead of reading, researching and making up their own conclusions independently.

If there is one thing I have learnt from being British it is that the mainstream media will never show anything if they want it quiet and hidden. The fact that Defend Our Juries gets a lot of mainstream coverage is, in my opinion, a huge red flag. Compare it to George Galloway’s Workers Party in the last general election. He was not invited to a single TV show, not a single TV debate, and on voting day the Workers Party was not even counted as a separate entity. The news channels lumped them in with ‘independents’ rather than as a political party - which is grossly and factually misleading. (Where art thou, Ofcom?)

It is the same reason we they MSM don’t give us any news about where our RAF is flying over Gaza, that they were in Qatar airspace when Israel bombed, or what the SAS are doing and whether they are on the ground in Gaza. That is kept quiet. Yet the media has reported heavily on Defend Our Juries and even told people they will continue to defy and when they will do so. It reads as “hint hint sheeple, get over there and get arrested!”

The British state are experts at misdirection and in infiltrating the left and have been doing it for decades. There’s an old saying that goes, for every football team of activists, one will be a police officer. In fact, they even had police so embedded that they became partners with their assigned targets, fathered their children, then buggered off years later when the operation was over. That’s how insidious the state is and how far they are prepared to go. The lesson? Do not be so complacent when campaigning for Palestine - a cause the rabidly pro-Israeli UK government has been trying to neutralise for years. Always remain vigilant and do your checks; if something doesn’t sit right with you, it does not matter how many people believe in it, check it out thoroughly. Our gut instincts are there for a reason; they can be very perceptive

I think the Defend Our Juries ‘Lift the Ban’ campaign - ostensibly with the objective of the de-proscription of Palestine action - is a psyop that people in their thousands have fallen for. Rather than a protest of mass arrest - a legitimate protest tactic - the whole thing seems designed to be a protest of mass conviction.

For those who don’t know, Defend Our Juries (‘DoJ’) state that they are ‘lawfully’ protesting for the de-proscription of Palestine Action, a non-violent, direct action group. Palestine Action’s mandate was to vandalise weapons factories supplying Israel, foremost among them, Israeli weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems. All of their targets have contributed to, and profited from, the murder of 680,000 Palestinians in Israel’s satanic genocide.

It is lawful to protest for the de-proscription of a proscribed group, and against the misuse of terrorism laws. It is unlawful, however, to show support for a proscribed group. The difference is one will allow you to be free to protest, the other will lumber you with a terrorism conviction.

Despite telling people the protest against proscription is lawful (it is), DoJ then bizarrely asks everyone to hold up a sign, in public, stating “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” This is clearly not a statement in support of de-proscription, but one in support of a proscribed organisation, an offence under s.13 Terrorism Act 2000. Section 13 is what is known as a strict liability offence. That means it has no defence. As long as you were knowingly displaying in public an item that arouses ‘reasonable suspicion’ that you are a supporter of a proscribed organisation, then you are guilty. This means, as long as you knew you were holding something - even if you did not know what that thing even said (e.g. holding it for a friend, you don’t speak English, you didn’t realise the group was proscribed etc) - then you are guilty of the offence and your intention is completely irrelevant.

There is a difference between a protest of mass arrest and one of mass conviction, and the difference is even more so when the conviction is a terrorism conviction, which is the most draconian you can get. Even the ‘least’ serious of the terrorism offences has serious consequences, namely that they can prevent travel to many countries (e.g. the EU, America, Australia, India, Canada, etc). They can prevent you from getting a job and give employers the right to fire you from your current job. Same with universities - you can be blocked from going, or expelled from your current course. Not only that of course, Defend Our Juries encourages people to not give their personal details to the police, in order to flood the police stations, claiming this will overwhelm the system and the government will have to reverse the law, aka de-proscribe.

The problem with such promises is that the people involved have made them before. That’s right, the people who were heavily involved in Extinction Rebellion (‘XR’), and Just Stop Oil (‘JSO’) have now started Defend Our Juries and are telling people - again - to get arrested en masse because they boldly claim - again - that this will overwhelm the system, and protestors will be victorious as the government is forced to cede to their demands! The main individual involved in the creation and promotion of the DoJ and the ‘Lift the Ban’ campaign - (and who was involved in both XR and JSO ) - is none other than former government lawyer, Tim Crosland.

Rather than bang on, I’m going to reproduce below a letter written by Right to Protest (‘RtP’) to Tim Crosland, co-founder of Defend Our Juries, which pretty much summarises what seems to be going on, in their opinion.

RtP’s Director is the amazing surgeon, pro-Palestinian activist and Communist, Ranjeet Brar. RtP started a campaign to try and prevent people from getting convicted under terrorism legislation, by producing lawful leaflets which could be displayed in support of the de-proscription of Palestine action, and not the group itself. Before you read the letter, I highly recommend you check out their campaign webpage and Ranjeet’s video on that page, explaining the Right to Protest campaign.

I don’t want to say anymore as the letter really encompasses the main points really well. So, please, have a read and judge for yourself (links are footnoted at the bottom).

At time of writing, Right to Protest had yet to receive any reply to or acknowledgement of their letter.

URGENT

Dear Tim,

RE: Complaint against DOJ’s Lift the Ban ‘Parliament Square’ Campaign

We are writing to raise grave concerns about the Defend Our Juries (“DoJ”) “Lift the Ban” campaign. While presented as a defence of civil liberties, its structure, leadership, and omissions in public guidance make it appear, at best, reckless, and at worst, deliberately designed to place ordinary people in grave legal jeopardy without a defence.

Rather than promote mass arrest as they claim – a legitimate tactic used in protest movements to make powerful political statements – DoJ seems to instead be actively seeking the conviction of protestors under draconian terrorism legislation.

As part of their involvement in the DoJ campaign, the protestors are being charged under the Terrorism Act, among the most serious laws in the UK. The effects of any conviction under the Terrorism Act can have a significant impact on peoples’ lives, yet, incredulously DoJ refer to this offence as a “low-level”[1] s.13 offence. The majority of the ‘Lift the Ban’ protestors have been arrested for the s.13 offence which can have life-altering effects upon an individual’s entire life. We have outlined a number of the potential consequences on page 2 below.

Arrests vs. Convictions – Why the Difference Matters

Mass arrest has historically been used by protesters as a form of protest in themselves, particularly in traditions of civil disobedience. In this context, being arrested is a way of demonstrating commitment to a cause, drawing public attention, and challenging the legitimacy of certain laws or policing practices.

There is an important difference between arrests and convictions:

1. Arrests are often treated by protest groups as a badge of honour or a form of symbolic act of protest. They can create headlines, generate sympathy, and put pressure on authorities. However, many arrests do not lead to charges, and if no conviction follows, there is no criminal record

2. Convictions, by contrast, have long-term and often life-changing consequences. A conviction:

   • goes on a person’s permanent criminal record;

   • can limit job opportunities, education, and travel; and

   • brings lasting stigma.

These risks are especially severe with terrorism convictions.

What This Means for Protesters

In practice, this means that while DoJ say their Lift the Ban campaign is about defending protest rights, their actual actions seem to point in another direction: towards protesters ending up with potentially life-altering terrorism convictions rather than just temporary arrests.

Terrorism Convictions

A s.13 conviction can have life-altering and devastating consequences. The Metropolitan police has issued the following advice on s.13:

“The consequences for those charged with offences under the Terrorism Act (‘TACT’) include:

• A maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment.

• The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) will have a record of a person’s TACT conviction, and this will be seen by employers who use DBS to carry out checks on staff or new applicants. The existence of a TACT conviction may be seen by employers as grounds for a refusal to employ a person or to dismiss them.

• Universities also carry out DBS checks, and may refuse entry to courses to those with terrorism convictions.

• Any application to visit another country usually requires a declaration of criminal convictions. A TACT conviction will be a potential bar to entry to countries including the US, Australia, Japan, and from 2026 when the ETIAS system is introduced, countries of the European Union.

• If a person is a member of a professional body, they may face disciplinary proceedings and potentially removal from the profession.”

Additionally:

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022: the Home Secretary can deprive a person of British citizenship if satisfied it is “conducive to the public good” and under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 this can be without prior notice. This also applies to British-born citizens who are eligible for another nationality (for example, through one or both parents having been born abroad), or dual nationals. Such deprivation carries life-altering consequences, including potential statelessness, loss of rights, and permanent exclusion from the UK.

Tim Crosland

Tim Crosland is the co-founder of Defend Our Juries (‘DoJ’) and spearhead of the ‘Lift the Ban’ campaign. From 2001 to 2015, Mr Crosland was a lawyer for various law enforcement and governmental agencies providing legal advice on intelligence gathering operations.

This includes his following roles and positions:

• Head of Cyber, Prevention and Information law at the National Crime Agency (NCA)

• Head of Legal at the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS);

• Deputy Director of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)[2];

• He has worked in collaboration with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and the World Bank, and;

• He has worked with a number of overseas governments

Mr Crosland’s LinkedIn[3] reveals that he was formally the Head of Cyber, Prevention and Information Law at the National Crime Agency (NCA) but notably omits these other senior roles.

Involvement in Extinction Rebellion (‘XR’) and Just Stop Oil (‘JSO’)

Mr Crosland has been involved with both climate campaign groups, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. He has acted as Extinction Rebellion’s UK coordinator[4], legal advisor[5] and spokesperson[6].

He has addressed Just Stop Oil activists on an official Just Stop Oil march[7], and is listed on Just Stop Oil’s webpages as a point of contact[8].

Both Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil were funded[9] by ‘big oil’[10]. Their funders include oil heiress, Aileen Getty, and the organisation she co-founded, the Climate Emergency Fund[11] (‘CEF’), as well as the Rockefeller-funded, European Climate Fund[12].

Both organisations used the exact same set formula to promise results. The formula is as follows:

1. Urges action leading to the mass arrest of protestors to “flood” – (i.e. pressure) - the system.

2. Claims mass arrests will force the State to concede to protestor’s demands – and overwhelm the system.

3. Collects personal data through registrations or pledges.

4. Organises actions leading directly to mass arrests.

5. Results in harsher protest laws — none of the stated objectives are achieved.

The outcome of this set formula is not progress for protestors but ever-greater restrictions on the right to protest, and the criminalisation of protest, which the UN have condemned.

Mr Crosland is using this same formula again with the DoJ Lift the Ban campaign.

Extinction Rebellion (‘XR’) and Policy Exchange

Extinction Rebellion was co-founded by Roger Hallam in 2018.

Their three demands were:

1) to force all institutions to “tell the truth” about the “extreme cascading risks” humanity now faces from the climate crisis;

2) push for net-zero by 2025; and

3) create a citizen’s assembly on climate and ecological justice.

XR followed the same aforementioned formula:

1. Urges action leading mass arrest of protestors to “flood” the system.
   Calls for mass arrest of protestors – urging protestors to get arrested through XR instructed tactics, and to overwhelm the justice system[13]. Its website states: “Extinction Rebellion is a movement that uses nonviolent direct action and mass arrest as a tactic to achieve its aims.”[14] Co-founder Roger Hallam declared[15]: “Letters, emailing, marches don’t work. You need about 400 people to go to prison. About two to three thousand people to be arrested.”

2. Claims mass arrests will force the State to concede to protestors’ demands – and overwhelm the system.
   XR leaders confidently asserted that their tactics would compel concessions. Hallam argued that mass arrests would reach a point where: “The police will go to government and say, ‘We’re not doing it anymore. They’re not there to start arresting 84-year-old grannies or 10-year-old kids, there has to be a political solution.’”[16] However, this proved false; instead by 2021, more than 4,238 XR protestors had been arrested, with around 1,700 charged — many for minor public order offences[17].

3. Collects personal data through registrations or pledges.

   Protestors were repeatedly asked to register for[18] or pledge commitment before official actions[19], providing names and personal details.

4. Organises actions leading directly to mass arrests and convictions.
   XR coordinated mass protests that predictably resulted in arrests and criminal convictions. In April 2019 alone, more than 1,000 protestors were arrested in London during coordinated actions.[20]

5. Results in harsher protest laws — none of the stated objectives are achieved.
   The outcome of this strategy was not success but repression. XR’s actions were a key justification for government crackdowns, culminating in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and later the Public Order Act 2023. The objectives of the campaign were not achieved.

Far from realising their objectives, the disruptive actions of XR triggered a report by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, titled “Extremism Rebellion”[21]. The report made several recommendations for additional laws around public protest. Many of these were accepted by the government and implemented in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak confirmed Policy Exchange’s work “helped us draft”[22] the legislation.

Policy Exchange[23] has been identified by David Miller as functioning in part as a front for Zionist interests.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Cout Act has given far more powers to the police to restrict peaceful protest and public assembly and was widely criticised by the UN, parliamentarians and NGOs. Amnesty International[24] described the Act as “deeply authoritarian” and a “Dark day for civil liberties.”

The changes to the law made by Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 include[25]:

1. Public Order and Protest Restrictions:

   Before: Police could impose conditions only where a protest risked “serious public disorder, serious damage or serious disruption to the life of the community.”

   Now: The Act increased the circumstances in which police may impose conditions — including where the noise generated by a procession or assembly may cause serious disruption, and where the noise may cause alarm, distress, intimidation or a relevant impact.
   Effect: Gives police much wider discretion to impose restrictions.

2. Public Nuisance Offence:

   Before: Common law offence, typically with low punishments

   Now: Statutory offence with a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.

   Effect: Introduces a clearer legal framework for prosecution with harsher penalties.

3. Conditions on Static Assemblies:

   Before: Stricter powers for marches than assemblies.

   Now: Equalised – same powers for both.

   Effect: Removes the distinction, allowing police to impose the same broad conditions on both.

4. One-Person Protests:

   Before: A static demo was defined as two or more people: it did not cover one-person protests.

   Now: Police can impose conditions including for noise.

   Effect: Extends regulation to individuals, significantly curbing solo protest rights.

5. Highway Obstruction:

   Before: Punishable by fine only.

   Now: Up to 6 months’ imprisonment.

   Effect: Escalates penalties, increasing the criminal risk for protest-related obstruction.

6. Parliament Square Restrictions

   Before: Applied only to the central garden and adjoining footways as the “controlled area”

   Now: “Controlled area” now extended to include Parliament Square, Canon Row, Parliament Street, Derby Gate, and part of Victoria Embankment. An additional new restriction within the controlled area: it is now an offence for protestors to obstruct vehicles from entering and exiting Parliamentary buildings and grounds.

   Effect: Significantly widens the zone around Parliament where protests are restricted.

7. Protest Offences

   Before: Criminal offence only where an organiser or attendee knowingly failed to comply with conditions imposed on a protest – burden on prosecution to prove knowledge.

   Now: Threshold lowered: now an offence if you fail to comply with any conditions imposed on the protest, and you “know or ought to know” that the condition has been imposed.

   Effect: Protestors can now be convicted even if they were unaware of the exact conditions. The “ought to know” test makes it far easier for police and prosecutors to secure convictions, shifting risk and responsibility onto protestors rather than authorities.

These changes represent the biggest expansion of protest policing powers in decades, shifting the balance strongly in favour of state control over demonstrations. A more detailed explanation of the Act can be found on Liberty’s website[26].

Just Stop Oil (‘JSO’) and Policy Exchange

Roger Hallam, co-founder of XR, founded Just Stop Oil in 2022, with the objective to stop the UK government approving new fossil fuel projects[27]. Rather than change tactic after the alarming repression of protest rights brought about by XR’s tactics and mass arrests, JSO’s mandate was to ramp up public disruption and arrest, and use the exact same formula as XR. Called ‘the plan’[28] on the JSO website, the formula was:

1. Urges action leading mass arrest of protestors to “flood” the system. “The focus of the first phase of our campaign is to create a backfire effect by using the tactics of political jiu-jitsu, where we can use the government’s force against them. This will mean continuing with slow marching and refusing to back down against their repression, forcing them to overreact and reveal their true colours.”[29]

2. Claims mass arrests will force the State to concede to protestors’ demands – and overwhelm the system.

   “Our strategy is one of attrition – day after day, week after week like an annoying mosquito buzzing around their heads. Our London slow marches will ramp up over time. Come and join the swarm.”

   “Our relentless actions will force the government to assert their position as pro-new oil and gas, but as the landscape changes around them, with banks, the political opposition, key institutions and cultural figures supporting an end to new oil and gas, their position becomes increasingly weak.”

   Now is the moment we can force the government to the negotiating table.”[30]

   “Join Just Stop Oil on a slow march from 7am every weekday and midday every Saturday, at Parliament Square until we win.”[31]

3. JSO personal data through registrations or pledges. through registrations or pledges. JSO required supporters to complete an online form agreeing to attend training and commit to marching in London for several days[32].

4. Organises and coordinates its own official actions. Over 3,000[33] JSO protestors have been arrested across the campaign’s lifetime.

5. Results in harsher protest laws — none of the stated objectives are achieved.
   Together with XR, JSO’s tactics directly contributed to the passage of the Public Order Act 2023. Their actions also paved the way for record-length prison sentences[34] for non-violent protest, and for legal defences to be stripped from protestors in court. The objectives of the campaign were not achieved[35].

In response to JSO’s disruptive actions, Policy Exchange again produced a report, “The ‘Just Stop Oil’ Protests,”[36] as well as a briefing paper, “Amending the Public Order Bill,”[37] urging new legislation to criminalise long-standing, traditional British protest actions.”

As with Policy Exchange’s previous report, many of these recommendations were implemented into the Public Order Act 2023, which created new protest offences. The Public Order Act 2023 was again criticised heavily by NGOs and the UN.

Parliament confirmed that: “New protest-related offences under the Public Order Act 2023 were introduced in direct response to tactics deployed by environmental groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil.”[38]

The new offences under the Public Order Act 2023[39] new offences include:

• Locking-on – attaching yourself, another person, or an object to something in a way that causes (or risks causing) “serious disruption.”

Penalty: up to 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

• Being equipped for locking-on – carrying an item (e.g. glue, chain, lock) with the intention of using it for a locking-on offence.

Penalty: unlimited fine.

• Tunnelling offences – creating, participating in, or being present in a tunnel that causes (or could cause) “serious disruption.”

Penalty: up to 3 years’ imprisonment (Crown Court), or up to 6 months (Magistrates’ Court), a fine, or both.

• Being equipped for tunnelling – carrying equipment to create or support the above tunnelling offences

Penalty: up to 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

• Obstructing major transport works – obstructing individuals from constructing or maintaining major transport works, or interfering with the construction or maintenance of major transport works (such as HS2).

Penalty: up to 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

• Interfering with key national infrastructure – disrupting or delaying the operation of listed infrastructure (roads, rail, airports, ports, oil and gas facilities, electricity generation, newspaper printing).

Penalty: up to 12 months’ imprisonment (Crown Court), up to 6 months (Magistrates’ Court), a fine, or both.

Stop and Search Powers

• Expanded suspicion-based powers – police may stop and search you if they have “reasonable grounds to suspect” you are carrying items “made or adapted” for use in protest offences (e.g. glue, bike locks, tape, rope, tools).

• New suspicion-less powers – senior officers can authorise stop and search in a designated area for up to 24 hours (extendable once). This does not require any suspicion.

• Obstructing a suspicion-less search – it is now a criminal offence to intentionally obstruct such a search.

Penalty: up to 1 month in prison, a fine of up to £1,000, or both.

Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs)

• Courts can impose SDPOs on individuals aged 18 or over with a protest-related conviction (or even on police application).

• Conditions can include:

  • bans from attending or organising protests;

  • restrictions on movement, location, associations, or carrying certain items;

  • requirements to report to authorities;

  • restrictions on internet use to prevent encouraging protest offences.

• Duration: between 1 week and 2 years (renewable once).

• Breach of an SDPO: criminal offence.

Penalty: up to 6 months’ imprisonment, unlimited fine, or both.

Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights[40] urged the government to reverse the legislation warning, “This new law imposes serious and undue restrictions on these rights that are neither necessary nor proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose as defined under international law. This law is wholly unnecessary as UK police already have the powers to act against violent and disruptive demonstrations”.

“Governments are obliged to facilitate peaceful protests, while, of course, protecting the public from serious and sustained disruption. But the grave risk here is that these orders pre-emptively limit someone’s future legitimate exercise of their right.”

“I am also concerned that the law appears to target in particular peaceful actions used by those protesting about human rights and environmental issues.”

JSO was disbanded in April 2025[41].

The pattern is unmistakable:

• Same involvement of Tim Crosland.

• Same mass-arrest formula.

• Same failure to achieve objectives.

• Same outcome: the draconian restriction and criminalisation of protest rights.

Defend Our Juries ‘Lift the Ban’

Knowing full well the outcomes this formula has already produced, it is deeply disturbing that Tim Crosland, an experienced former government lawyer, is promoting it once again.

As a result of XR and JSO tactics, Policy Exchange’s aforementioned reports further called for the government to convict more people under protest laws, and to legislate more strictly to ensure arrest and convictions served as an adequate deterrent from future protest.

In their ‘The ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests’[42]report, Policy Exchange laments that the charges and sentencing of protestors, asserting that they are not acting as an appropriate deterrent and allow protestors to continue repeating their actions. It states:

• “The law risks being seen as an ass if those who live, work and campaign within the rules can see a particular group of people pursuing their political objectives, however laudable, by unlawful means – and in large measure getting away with it.”

• There is little or no fear of arrest, and any fines which are levied are a temporary inconvenience, potentially covered by crowdsourcing.

• “The Sentencing Council should be invited to issue guidance on punishments where the law has been broken during political protests. Repeat offenders must be punished more harshly than first-time offenders, especially when or if additional offences take place while a person is on bail, or when it is clear that an offender is unrepentant and intends to continue to commit similar offences…”

• “Given the presence of crowdfunding sites assisting activists who are fined for criminal offences, magistrates and judges should consider carefully whether fines are an appropriate penalty in cases involving protestors.“

• “The current wave of protests raises a clear problem of repeat offences, committed at times by repeat offenders. With activists holding rolling protests in a short period of time, it is now necessary to review bail and sentencing guidelines, to ensure they are fit for the changed circumstances.”

What better to reach this aim than a strict liability terrorism offence?

The formula Mr Crosland is promoting in the Defend Lift the Ban:

1. Calls for mass arrest of protesters – Lift the Ban states that they are “lawfully” protesting for the de-proscription of Palestine action, yet explicitly urges protestors to get arrested en masse by holding a sign stating: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action” - a crime under the Terrorism Act.

2. Confidently asserts that mass arrest will overwhelm the system – claiming the police cannot arrest everyone. This has already been debunked, with police confirming[43] they have the capacity[44] and ability to process all those breaking the law during Lift the Ban protests.

3. Collects personal data from protestors – requiring them to confirm they have read the Action Briefing, commit[45] to action, and hand over personal details.

4. Organises and coordinates the action – directly leading to mass arrests, with many protestors now facing hearings in Magistrates’ courts.

5. Results inevitably in harsher repression – mass arrests leading to further restrictions on the right to protest. The stated objectives of the campaign of the de-proscription of Palestine Action by protest by mass arrest have not been achieved.

The result of the DoJ campaign thus far has not been that the system is ‘overwhelmed’ nor that Palestine Action has been de-proscribed. Instead – as with XR and JSO – thousands of people have been arrested. But, unlike these previous campaigns, protestors are now being arrested under s.13 Terrorism Act, a strict liability offence, meaning: the protestors have no defence in law for their actions, and will likely be convicted.

This is not a campaign for protest rights. It is a conveyor belt into terrorism convictions — the most draconian and life-altering outcome possible under UK law.

The DoJ along with their lawyers have been advising protestors that they have a legal defence – this is not correct.

The legislation

S.13 Terrorism Act 2000 – is a strict liability offence

13.

(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.

S.13 is a strict liability offence.

That means intention – or ‘mens rea’ - is irrelevant: as long as a person is knowingly displaying the sign, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action” even if they honestly believed doing so was lawful, can lead to conviction. There is no defence available in law.

Despite this, DoJ continues to claim in their updated “Action Briefing Doc”[46] that there are ‘Potential lines of defence,’[47] which includes:

1. The argument that conviction is a ‘disproportionate’ interference with Article 10 ECHR rights - the right to expression - Not only is this highly misleading, but also false. As Tim Crosland, an experienced lawyer should know, the Supreme Court has already ruled in the case of Pwr v DPP[48] that Section 13 is proportional and therefore does not conflict with Article 10 freedom of expression rights.

2. In regards to the current proscription order proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, the argument that “the proscription order is unlawful” is highly misleading: the proscription order remains in force unless and until it is struck down by a court. Although there is a Judicial Review hearing scheduled about its legality, the judge did not grant an interim suspension so the proscription order remains current law.

3. Right to Protest Ltd and third line of ‘defence’

   Prior to the 6 September Parliament protest, Right to Protest Ltd launched a leaflet campaign[49] to ensure that protestors intentions were further fully clarified on their DoJ placards – that being that they were protesting in support of the de-proscription of Palestine Action as a misuse of terrorism laws, and not the group itself of its activities. Right to Protest Director, veteran activist and surgeon, Ranjeet Brar, created a video[50] also recommending the displaying of these leaflets on the placards as a further confirmation of protestor’s intentions. The leaflet received clearance from the police prior to the start of the protest on 6 September 2025, who confirmed they did not break the law as they clearly showed support for de-proscription of Palestine Action, and not Palestine Action itself. The leaflets read:

On 4^th September, Right to Protest Ltd received correspondence from Green and Black Cross[51], an unincorporated, volunteer-led protest support group, seemingly acting on behalf of a ‘collective’ including CASP[52] – the Climate Action Support Pathway - who feature on the DoJ Lift the Ban bust card, and who protestors are instructed to call directly when they get arrested:

Right to Protest Ltd replied to Green and Black Cross asking them to name their lawyers and for the legal opinion to be produced. To date, Right to Protest have received no further correspondence from them. The full email chain follows:

Right to Protest (‘RtP’) volunteers attended the 6 September protest to distribute leaflets. DoJ volunteers and staff in yellow hi-vis vests repeatedly tried to stop RtP volunteers from speaking with DoJ protestors, frequently interrupting them and acting in a hostile manner. Most concerningly, DoJ volunteers/staff falsely claimed to protestors that the information in the leaflet was “incorrect”—a complete fabrication.

One woman approached two RtP volunteers, identifying herself as a lawyer for DoJ. At first, she criticised the distribution of the leaflet. However, when a RtP volunteer explained that the leaflet had been cleared with the police, and that DoJ risked liability by attempting to obstruct its distribution, she immediately changed her position—stating that DoJ in fact had “no problem” with the leaflet.

The RtP volunteers raised three points of concern with her about the DoJ campaign:

• That the potentially devastating consequences of a terrorism conviction were not adequately addressed in the DoJ Action Briefing Document (‘ABD’), which protestors were asked to read prior to the protest.

• That the ABD failed to mention that, under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, British citizens can have their citizenship revoked without notice and be deported if they receive a terrorism conviction.

• That British Muslims and other minority groups are particularly vulnerable to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, since many have one or both parents who were born abroad.

The lawyer assured the RtP volunteers that she would raise these concerns with DoJ.

In response, DoJ incorporated Right to Protest’s campaign point into their latest, updated ABD as a supposed third line of defence. In reality, this is not a defence at all but a failure of the prosecution to establish the elements of the offence. Section 13 requires proof that the article was displayed “in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion” of support for a proscribed organisation. Since the protestors are clearly calling for the de-proscription of Palestine Action, not its support, and the police are aware of this, then it can be argued that they cannot credibly claim such suspicion. The issue is therefore whether the offence exists in the first place, not whether a defence can be raised once charged.

A conviction under s.13 may be life-altering.

Alarmingly, despite being raised directly with DoJ’s lawyer, the ABD still makes no mention of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and the specific risks that come with terrorism convictions under that legislation. The only reasonable conclusion is that this omission – and thus concealment – is a deliberate policy by DoJ. The question arises, why?

This is not mass arrest. It is mass conviction. It seems highly suspicious that a campaign claiming to defend protest rights is steering vulnerable people directly into offences of this severity.

DoJ – Escalation by recklessly promoting and encouraging Window Poster Campaign

Simultaneously with uploading the updated their Briefing Note, DoJ also added a new section[53] to its Lift the Ban/wedonotcomply.org homepage, encouraging protestors to display posters stating “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action” in their windows. These posters were made available to download directly from the site. DoJ announced this addition on social media[54] and encouraged people to take part.

This is extremely reckless and misleading advice. The definition of public place is a matter for the courts but both courts and Statute have taken it to include windows that can be seen by the public.

A man in Scotland was arrested under s.13 Terrorism Act for having the same sign in his window[55]. It is appalling and completely misleading that Defend Our Juries has chosen to omit this case. It also strongly suggests again that the purpose of the DoJ campaign is not arrest, but conviction.

In regards to the Liverpool case mentioned by DoJ on their website, the police would have likely depended upon the personal circumstances of the man’s house and whether his window was not easily seen by the public unless they entered into his private property. As such, the offence will be dependent on the specific circumstances of each case and not “an abuse of process” as DoJ claims.

Alarmingly, it seems the DoJ seeks to conceal the actual circumstances of the case involving Merseyside police by linking to an article which is behind a paywall. As such, those without a subscription cannot read the article. Clicking the link, the following page comes up:

It is clear from the link, that without a subscription and stuck behind the paywall, the headline alone can be easily misleading.

Moreover, the “reasonable suspicion” mitigation that is available at the Parliament Square Lift the Ban protests is unlikely to apply when people display the DoJ poster elsewhere. This is because the police and general public are aware of the Parliament Square protests, their purpose, their dates, and that they are being organised by DoJ. As such, it could be argued that a reasonable person would not have “reasonable suspicion” that these protestors were supporters of a proscribed organisation, but would be aware they were lawfully protesting for the de-proscription of Palestine Action.

Away from the mass, pre-organised DoJ protests held at Parliament Square, that awareness and knowledge is unlikely to exist. A reasonable person who sees the poster in a window may well have “reasonable suspicion” that the person displaying it is a supporter or member of a proscribed group. The reasonable person test has a VERY low threshold.

This new campaign puts people in jeopardy of conviction for a s.13 strict liability terrorism offence by believing the action is lawful because DoJ publicly has said it is, which is not a defence under the Act.

As such, this poster in window campaign seems designed to encourage as many terrorism convictions as possible and is a massive and reckless escalation of the Lift the Ban campaign.

Conclusion

It is our view, that you have purposely designed this campaign to allow for mass arrests which are highly likely to result in mass convictions. This will then be used by the Policy Exchange to advocate for more draconian protest laws. As a former criminal lawyer, you cannot deny that you are ignorant of the law including the application of s.13 of the Terrorism Act. We believe that you are a charlatan, purposely misdirecting and preying on vulnerable people by claiming they do have a legal defence when this is far from the truth.

We place you on notice that we will be reporting DoJ to the counter-terrorism police and seeking an urgent injunction against you and your organisation for advocating, supporting and enabling vulnerable people to commit a criminal offence by breaching the Terrorism Act 2000.

We demand that you immediately take down your illegal campaign and halt any further incitement to commit terrorism offences. We will be doing all that we can to ensure that your campaign is exposed for what it is!

Yours faithfully,

Right to Protest Ltd

---

[1] p.27 of the Lift the Ban Briefing Note - https://defendourjuries.net/lift-the-ban/lift-the-ban-calls/

[2] https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.-Tim-Crosland-SIGNED-redacted.pdf

[3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-crosland-b2ab9594?originalSubdomain=uk

[4] https://rebellion.global/press/2019/12/30/xr-2019/

[5] youtube

[6] https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/author/4213/tim-crosland

[7] https://juststopoil.org/2025/04/25/just-stop-oil-resistance-works-and-were-just-getting-started/

[8] https://juststopoil.org/2024/07/11/5-just-stop-oil-supporters-found-guilty-as-un-slams-trial/

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion#Support_and_funding

[10] https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/is-just-stop-oil-funded-by-big-oil-companies

[11] https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/climate-emergency-fund/

[12] https://www.patreon.com/posts/big-lie-climate-81843353

[13] https://www.theperspective.se/2021/11/05/activism/extinction-rebellion-evaluating-the-strategy/

[14] https://extinctionrebellion.uk/act-now/resources/arrestee-welfare/

[15] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/15/extinction-rebellion-protesters-arrested-stansted-15

[16] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47865211

[17] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/08/more-than-1000-extinction-rebellion-activists-taken-to-court

[18] https://web.archive.org/web/20210501053652/https://extinctionrebellion.uk/act-now/campaigns/rebellion-of-one/

[19] https://web.archive.org/web/20210418120213/https://actionnetwork.org/forms/ro1

[20] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/people-arrested-at-london-climate-protests

[21] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Extremism-Rebellion.pdf

[22] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/rishi-sunak-right-wing-think-tank-anti-protest-laws-policy-exchange/

[23] https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/how-zionist-interests-are-behind-british-gov-s-attempted-def

[24] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-dark-day-civil-liberties-deeply-authoritarian-policing-bill-passed-lords

[25] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pcsc-policing-act-protest-rights/#:~:text=from%20a%20bridge.-,What’s%20changed?,public%20from%20exercising%20their%20rights.

[26] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pcsc-policing-act-protest-rights/

[27] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63543307

[28] https://juststopoil.org/the-plan/

[29] https://juststopoil.org/the-plan/

[30] Ibid.

[31] https://juststopoil.org/2023/05/03/just-stop-oil-supporters-continue-marching-in-accordance-with-fundamental-human-rights-as-deeply-troubling-bill-comes-into-law/

[32] https://web.archive.org/web/20230521010913/https://juststopoil.org/

[33] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/26/uk-activist-group-just-stop-oil-holds-its-last-climate-protest

[34] https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2024/7/19/uk-climate-activists-get-record-jail-terms-for-non-violent-protest

[35] The Conservative government issued 82 new licenses between 2022-2024, and the current Labour government will not revoke these licenses, paving the way for future approval for fossil fuel extraction.

[36] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The-‘Just-Stop-Oil-protests.pdf

[37] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Amending-the-Public-Order-Bill.pdf

[38] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/policing-and-protests/#:~:text=New%20protest%2Drelated%20offences%20under,Britain%20and%20Just%20Stop%20Oil.

[39] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/public-order-act-new-protest-offences/

[40] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/04/un-human-rights-chief-urges-uk-reverse-deeply-troubling-public-order-bill#:~:text=GENEVA%20(27%20April%202023)%20%2D,peaceful%20protests%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added.

[41] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6denxzweeo

[42] https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The-‘Just-Stop-Oil-protests.pdf

[43]

[43] https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/article-866552

[44] https://news.met.police.uk/pressreleases/more-than-425-arrested-during-protest-policing-operation-3403163

[45] https://actionnetwork.org/forms/lift-the-ban-london-october-4th/?clear_id=true

[46] https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Fe8vYAZK7Q-eQPL6_HhkWOg7VsKNMnOUe42JqtpbWI/edit?tab=t.0 (as of date of letter: https://defundgenocide.co.uk/documents-resources/)

[47] p.16 Lift the Ban Briefing Note - https://defendourjuries.net/lift-the-ban/lift-the-ban-calls/

[48] https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2020_0076_judgment_f8487be776.pdf

Pwr (Appellant) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) Akdogan and another (Appellants) v Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) [2022] UKSC 2:

[49] https://defundgenocide.co.uk/misuse-terrorism-laws/

[50] Ibid.

[51] https://greenandblackcross.org/about/faqs/

[52] https://mycasp.com/

[53] https://defendourjuries.net/lift-the-ban/

[54] instagram

[55] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0qn8vz00no