R v ABJ (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Linked cases
Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0079

Parties

Appellant(s)

ABJ

Respondent(s)

Crown Prosecution Service - Counter Terrorism Division

Issue

(1) Do the terms of s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the TA”) represent a disproportionate interference with the appellants’ rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)? In the event that they do, is it possible to read down the terms of the offence to render them compatible? (2) What is the mental element in relation to the offence under s.12(1A)

Facts

In the case of ABJ, the appellant in the first appeal, she is alleged to have expressed a belief or opinion supportive of a proscribed organisation, Hamas, contrary to s.12(1A) of the TA. This allegation arises in relation to a speech that ABJ gave in Brighton City Centre on 8 October 2023 as part of a Palestine Solidarity Campaign event. At a preparatory hearing in the Crown Court at Kingston on 11 June 2024, HHJ Lodder KC ruled: (i) the s.12(1A) offence does not require proof that the defendant was aware of the fact that the organisation in question was proscribed; and (ii) proof of the ingredients of the offence is of itself sufficient to ensure that a conviction is a proportionate interference with a defendant’s rights under article 10 ECHR. No proportionality direction to the jury is required. In the case of BDN, the appellant in the second appeal, he is also alleged to have expressed a belief or opinion supportive of Hamas. This allegation arises in relation to quotes written on a placard that BDN held, and a speech that BDN gave, outside the gates to Downing Street on 17 October 2023. At a preparatory hearing in the Central London Criminal Court on 28 June 2024 the Recorder of London, HHJ Lucraft KC, also ruled that proof of the ingredients of the offence is of itself sufficient to ensure that a conviction is a proportionate interference with a defendant’s rights under article 10. The Court of Appeal heard the appeals together, and on 24 December 2024 dismissed the appeals. On 12 February 2025, the Court of Appeal refused the appellants permission to appeal but certified two questions of public importance as set out in the Issues above. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court on those two questions.