Two pro-Palestinian activists who were previously convicted of harassing Welsh Labour MP and government minister Alex Davies-Jones have had their convictions overturned, marking a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of political protest and free expression in the United Kingdom.
The case, which unfolded over the past year, began on June 26, 2024, during the heated run-up to the general election. Ayeshah Behit, 32, and Hiba Ahmed, 26, confronted Ms Davies-Jones in Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, as she campaigned for re-election as the Labour MP for Pontypridd. The activists, who were openly critical of Labour’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, distributed leaflets accusing Davies-Jones of being a “full-blown supporter of this genocide”—a reference to the ongoing war in Gaza. According to BBC News, the activists also placed posters on the Labour office in Pontypridd and stickers outside her campaign headquarters, with slogans such as “Alex Davies-Jones how many murdered children is too many?” and accusations that politicians were “enabling genocide.”
Ms Davies-Jones, who serves as parliamentary under-secretary of state for victims, told the court she was aware of the content of the leaflets and initially approached the activists in an attempt to defuse the situation. She recounted that the pair questioned her voting record on a Commons ceasefire vote, with the activists asking why she had abstained. Davies-Jones explained she had not abstained, but had been out of the country at the time. She said she decided to end the conversation as it became “more aggressive” and “confrontational.”
As she walked away, the activists followed her down the street, shouting accusations such as “Alex Davies-Jones you support genocide” and “What do you think about children being tortured and murdered?” A video of the interaction, played in court, captured the escalating confrontation. Ms Davies-Jones described the ordeal as “quite scary,” telling the court, “It was clear they weren’t listening and weren’t interested in what I had to say, it was worrying for myself and for the younger members of my team who had never seen anything like that before… I had never seen anything like that before.” She added that she and her team felt intimidated enough to hide in a university building to get away from the activists, and she ultimately decided to stop campaigning that day, mindful of the fate of other MPs such as Jo Cox, who was murdered in 2016.
Following the confrontation, an edited video of the incident was posted on social media, suggesting that Davies-Jones was racist and Islamophobic. The MP reported ongoing abuse on social media as a result. According to Nation.Cymru, the activists also continued their campaign by knocking on doors previously visited by canvassers, loudly telling residents that Davies-Jones supported genocide.
In June 2025, Behit and Ahmed were found guilty of harassment at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court. Ahmed, who had no prior convictions, received a 12-month conditional discharge, while Behit, who had a previous conviction related to a protest in Cardiff, was given an 18-month conditional discharge. Both were ordered to pay fines. However, the pair immediately challenged the ruling, arguing that their actions constituted protected political speech and were a legitimate exercise of free expression, particularly during a national election campaign.
The appeal was heard at Cardiff Crown Court in November 2025. During the three-day hearing, representatives for Behit and Ahmed, including Francesca Cociani, emphasized that the activists’ actions were not personal attacks but rather political speech directed at Labour Party policy. Cociani argued, “Alex Davies-Jones as an individual and as a political figure come as a whole. [But] she was never targeted in her capacity as an individual, it wasn’t at her home address that she was targeted. This was political speech... it was very clearly to do with Labour Party policy and decisions. It was not only in a public place but it was within her constituency... In the middle of a national campaign for the General Election.”
The court also heard that it was not uncommon for Labour MPs to be accused of supporting genocide during the intense public debate over Gaza in the run-up to the election. According to Sky News, the activists’ legal team insisted that their clients’ actions did not amount to harassment, but were a reasonable exercise of their rights to freedom of expression.
Judge Tracey Lloyd-Clarke, the Recorder of Cardiff, ultimately sided with the appellants. In her ruling on November 19, 2025, she stated that the prosecutions were “not necessary” and allowed both appeals. She described the activists’ actions as a “planned and well-orchestrated campaign” intended to harm the electoral prospects of Ms Davies-Jones, but noted that “less intrusive” measures—such as a police warning or civil action—had not been pursued before resorting to prosecution. Importantly, Judge Lloyd-Clarke emphasized, “Nothing in this judgment implies, or should be taken to imply, that there is any truth in the accusations made by the appellants about Ms Davies-Jones. We are not satisfied that a prosecution was necessary... the appeals of both defendants are allowed.”
The ruling was met with celebration by Behit and Ahmed and their supporters. Francesca Cociani called the decision “a great day for justice and common sense,” adding, “It was clear that my clients were exercising their freedom of speech during an election, as they were entitled to do, in our free and democratic country. Their arrest, prosecution and conviction for harassment were an egregious affront on those rights and they are delighted to have finally been exonerated.”
The case has sparked a broader conversation about the boundaries between robust political protest and harassment, especially in the context of emotionally charged issues like the Israel-Hamas conflict. While some advocates for MPs and public officials argue that aggressive tactics can cross the line into intimidation and create real dangers—especially in light of recent attacks on politicians—others maintain that political speech, however uncomfortable, must be vigorously protected in a democracy.
Judge Lloyd-Clarke’s ruling carefully avoided taking a stance on the truth of the activists’ accusations or on Labour’s policies regarding Gaza. Instead, her decision rested on the principle that criminal prosecution should be a last resort, and that other remedies could have been pursued first. The court’s acknowledgment that the activists’ campaign was “planned and well-orchestrated” to damage an MP’s electoral chances did not, in itself, justify the prosecution, particularly when the conduct occurred in public and during an election campaign.
For now, the outcome stands as a reminder of the delicate balance the UK justice system must strike between safeguarding free expression and protecting public figures from harassment. As political tensions over international conflicts continue to spill onto Britain’s streets and into its election campaigns, that balance will likely face further tests in the years to come.
