It was a brisk summer morning in London when, on July 19, 2025, police moved in on a demonstration that would soon become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over protest, free speech, and national security. The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command arrested 47 people that day, all suspected of showing support for the proscribed group Palestine Action—a move that has since rippled through legal, political, and activist circles across the UK.
According to BBC and other major outlets, these 47 individuals were charged under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) authorizing the charges and notifying each person via postal charge requisition. The accused, all residents of England, are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in late October 2025, where they will answer to allegations of supporting a banned group—an offence that carries potentially life-altering consequences.
This latest wave of charges brings the total number of people charged in London for showing support to Palestine Action to 114 as of early September 2025, according to Caliber.Az and corroborated by the Metropolitan Police. The crackdown is part of a broader operation launched after Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proscribed Palestine Action under terrorism laws on July 5, following an incident where activists daubed paint on military jets at RAF Brize Norton, causing £7 million in damage. The government’s response has been swift and uncompromising: more than 700 arrests have been made since the ban, a figure cited by BBC, underscoring the scale of the law enforcement effort.
Detective Chief Superintendent Helen Flanagan, Head of Operations at the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, has emerged as the public face of the operation. In a statement quoted by multiple outlets, Flanagan emphasized, “We fully recognise people’s right to demonstrate peacefully, and thousands continue to protest in support of Palestine without breaking counter-terrorism laws. I would therefore urge anyone considering coming out and showing support to Palestine Action to reconsider, otherwise you will very likely be arrested, investigated and we’ll work with the CPS to bring about prosecutions.”
Flanagan’s message is clear: while peaceful protest is protected, any association—real or perceived—with Palestine Action now risks serious legal jeopardy. “For those people now charged, if convicted, they are facing potentially serious consequences that could impact on their careers and their ability to travel overseas,” she added.
The consequences for those convicted are not trivial. As outlined by the Metropolitan Police and the CPS, a conviction under section 13 of the Terrorism Act carries a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment. But the effects extend far beyond jail time. Any conviction is recorded by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), meaning it will appear on background checks conducted by employers and universities. This could lead to job loss, refusal of employment, or denial of entry to higher education courses. Travel, too, becomes fraught: a terrorism conviction can bar entry to countries including the United States, Australia, and Japan, and, starting in 2026, could prevent travel to European Union nations under the new ETIAS system. Professional bodies may also initiate disciplinary proceedings, potentially leading to expulsion from a chosen field.
For the 47 newly charged individuals, whose names and birthdates were published by the Met, the stakes are high. They come from a wide range of backgrounds and locations—Oxford, Norwich, Nottingham, Leeds, Brighton, and beyond—reflecting the broad geographic and demographic reach of the protest movement. Each is now navigating the daunting prospect of a criminal trial, with the possibility of a conviction that could shadow them for years to come.
Yet, the legal battle is far from settled. The ban on Palestine Action, and the subsequent wave of arrests, have drawn strong reactions from civil liberties advocates and legal representatives. Lawyers for Huda Ammori, the group’s co-founder, have argued that the proscription breaches the right to free speech and has effectively gagged legitimate protest. According to BBC, Ammori’s legal team maintains that the government’s actions go too far, targeting not just criminal acts but also peaceful expressions of political dissent.
Supporters of Palestine Action and allied campaign groups echo these concerns, insisting that the ban has chilled legitimate protest activity and set a dangerous precedent for the suppression of dissent. They point to the group’s central mission—direct action against companies and institutions linked to the Israeli military—as political activity that, while controversial, should fall within the bounds of lawful protest.
The government, for its part, stands firm. Officials, including Home Secretary Cooper, argue that the ban is both necessary and proportionate, narrowly targeting a group accused of organizing serious criminality. The paint attack on RAF Brize Norton, which caused millions in damages, is frequently cited as evidence of the group’s willingness to cross the line from protest to criminal sabotage. As the government sees it, the proscription is not an attack on free speech but a measured response to escalating law-breaking.
This clash of perspectives is now headed for a decisive legal showdown. Last month, Palestine Action and its supporters won permission to challenge the ban at the High Court, with a full hearing scheduled for November 2025. Although a judge recently refused to temporarily lift the ban, meaning it remains in place until the court’s review, the upcoming case is expected to test the limits of the government’s powers under the Terrorism Act and the balance between national security and civil liberties.
Meanwhile, the charged individuals await their day in court, their futures hanging in the balance. The wider protest movement, undeterred, continues to march in support of Palestine, careful to avoid explicit links to the banned group. As Flanagan noted, “Thousands continue to protest in support of Palestine without breaking counter terrorism laws.” The line between lawful protest and criminal support, however, has never felt thinner—or more consequential.
As the October court dates approach, all eyes will be on Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the High Court beyond. The outcome will not only determine the fate of 114 charged individuals but could also redefine the boundaries of protest and free speech in Britain for years to come.
