R v BDN (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0059

Parties

Appellant(s)

BDN

Respondent(s)

Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division

Intervener(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Do the terms of section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 represent a disproportionate interference with the appellants’ right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? If so, is it possible to read down the terms of the offence to make them compatible?

Facts

: The appellants, ABJ and BDN, have both been charged with criminal offences under section 12(1A). They are alleged to have expressed an opinion or belief that is supportive of Hamas, one of the proscribed organisations listed in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Neither ABJ nor BDN’s cases have gone to trial, so the facts have not yet been established. However, the following facts are agreed for the purposes of these appeals. ABJ gave a speech on 8 October 2023, the day after the attacks on Israel by Hamas, in which over 1,200 people were killed and 251 people were taken hostage. The speech was given in Brighton city centre as part of a Palestine Solidarity Campaign event. It lasted about four minutes and included words describing the events of 7 October as “a victory”. Police officers present at the event took no action, but ABJ was arrested and later charged after edited footage of her speech was published online by the Daily Mail. BDN’s indictment arises out of an incident on 17 October 2023, when he stood outside the gates to Downing Street holding a placard and a small loudhailer. One side of the placard read: “HAMAS is the vanguard of the Resistance – Avi Shlaim”. The other side read: “You won’t destroy HAMAS – Tony Blair.” BDN asked a passer-by to film him using BDN’s phone. He then set off a short alarm sound on the loudhailer and used it to express his support for “the physical force resistance in Palestine” in the presence of passing members of the public. The film was never livestreamed or shared by any means. BDN was arrested later the same day, while holding the placard in another part of Westminster. Preliminary hearings were held in both cases to clarify the applicable law. In ABJ’s case, the trial judge held that, if the ingredients of the section 12(1A) offence were proved, there was no need for the jury to conduct a separate assessment of whether a conviction would interfere disproportionately with ABJ’s right to freedom of expression under article 10. In BDN’s case, the trial judge rejected BDN’s contention that the section 12(1A) offence was too uncertain to be “prescribed by law” as required by the Convention. The trial judge also held that establishing the ingredients of the section 12(1A) offence was sufficient to ensure that a conviction was compatible with BDN’s right to freedom of expression under article 10. Both ABJ and BDN appealed; their appeals were heard together by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, but certified the point of law of general importance set out in the “issues” above as being involved in each case.

Date of issue

4 April 2025

Case origin

PTA

Written arguments

Statements of Facts and Issues

Linked cases

Judgment details

Judgment date

26 February 2026

Neutral citation

[2026] UKSC 8

Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lord Lloyd-Jones

Lord Sales

Lord Burrows

Lord Richards

Hearing dates

Start date

20 November 2025

End date

20 November 2025

Watch hearings

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lord Hamblen

Lady Simler

Permission to Appeal decision date

4 July 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Granted in part

Back to top