The legal saga surrounding Irish rapper Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, known to fans as Mo Chara from the hip-hop trio Kneecap, has taken a new turn as UK prosecutors announced an appeal against the recent dismissal of terrorism charges brought against him. The case, which has stirred debate over free speech, legal technicalities, and political motivations, continues to capture widespread attention on both sides of the Irish Sea.
On September 26, 2025, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring of Woolwich Crown Court ruled that the terrorism charge against Ó hAnnaidh was "unlawful and null," citing a technical error in the way the charge had been instituted. The 27-year-old Belfast native had been accused of displaying a flag in support of the proscribed terrorist organization Hezbollah during a November 2024 gig at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London. Prosecutors alleged that Ó hAnnaidh could be seen in a recording of the performance wearing and displaying the Hezbollah flag while chanting, "up Hamas, up Hezbollah."
The heart of the legal dispute centers on a procedural misstep: the prosecution failed to obtain the necessary consent from the Attorney General before informing Ó hAnnaidh on May 21, 2025, that he would face a terror charge. According to the ruling, this violated the six-month statutory time limit required for such cases. Chief Magistrate Goldspring concluded, "I find that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form, lacking the necessary DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and AG (Attorney General) consent within the six-month statutory time limit. The time limit requires consent to have been granted at the time or before the issue of the requisition. Consequently the charge is unlawful and null and this court has no jurisdiction to try the charge."
Prosecutors, however, have maintained a different interpretation of the law. They argue that permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General was only required before Ó hAnnaidh's first court appearance, which took place about a month after the initial notification. As Michael Bisgrove, the prosecutor, previously told the court, "permission did not need to be sought in order to bring a criminal charge." Chief Magistrate Goldspring was unconvinced, dismissing the argument as one that "defies logic."
Following the case's dismissal, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) declared on October 7, 2025, that it would appeal the decision. In a statement carried by multiple outlets, the CPS said, "We are appealing the decision to dismiss this case as we believe there is an important point of law which needs to be clarified." The move has reignited debate over legal process and political influence in high-profile prosecutions.
The rapper and his group have not shied away from controversy or public comment. After the September hearing, Ó hAnnaidh insisted the process was not about him personally, nor about terrorism or any threat to the public. "It was never about any threat to the public, it was never about terrorism – a word used by your Government to discredit people you oppress. It was always about Gaza, about what happens if you dare to speak up," he stated, according to The Irish Times. In a subsequent interview with Virgin Media News, he directed a pointed message at UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer: "better luck next time," adding, "Even if it had went to court we would have won anyway."
Kneecap, in a social media post responding to news of the CPS appeal, accused authorities of wasting public resources and pursuing a politically motivated case. "Once again this is a massive waste of taxpayers' money, of police time, of court time. Once again there are endless news reports about Mo Chara, about Kneecap but we are NOT the story. We will fight you in your court again. We will win again," the band declared. They further alleged: "It is unsurprising because this whole process has not been driven by the police or the courts, it has been driven by politicians backed up by British media. This is political policing. There is no 'important point of law.' The CPS have submitted nothing new in their appeal. What there is though, is a state wide witch-hunt against Palestinian solidarity."
The case has also drawn attention from political figures. Northern Ireland First Minister Michelle O’Neill described the original charges as "part of a calculated attempt to silence those who stand up and speak out against the Israeli genocide in Gaza," according to Al Jazeera. The rapper himself echoed similar themes, stating after the charges were thrown out, "As people from Ireland, we know oppression, colonialism, famine and genocide. We have suffered and still suffer under 'your empire.' Your attempts to silence us have failed because we are right and you are wrong. We will not be silent."
Attorney General Lord Hermer, for his part, has attempted to keep the political temperature in check. On October 7, 2025, he warned shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick against making public comments that could prejudice future proceedings. Jenrick had previously called for an urgent inquiry into the matter, claiming it "raised serious questions about the competence of all those involved."
The ongoing legal dispute comes against a backdrop of Kneecap’s broader activism and international controversies. The group has faced bans from entering Hungary and Canada, and several concerts in Germany and Austria have been cancelled this year, with critics accusing them of promoting terrorism due to their support for Palestinian causes. Kneecap, however, has consistently denied supporting Hezbollah or Hamas, insisting they do not condone violence.
This is not the first time the group has clashed with authorities. Last year, Kneecap won a discrimination case against the UK government after Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch attempted to block a £14,250 funding award to the band during her tenure as business secretary.
For now, the fate of the terrorism charge—and the broader legal and political questions it raises—remains unresolved. The CPS’s appeal is expected to test not only the technical boundaries of the UK’s Terrorism Act but also the balance between security, free expression, and political dissent in an era of heightened tensions over the Israel-Gaza conflict. As the legal process continues, all eyes will remain fixed on the courtroom—and on the wider debate it has ignited about the limits of protest, the reach of the law, and the power of music to challenge authority.
