Police detain 325 people at pro-Palestine Action protest at US embassy in London

The protest targeted the government’s ban on Palestine Action. It took place outside the US embassy in Battersea, south London, before the Supreme Court examines the ban. The demonstration formed part of a wider civil disobedience campaign organised by Defend Our Juries.

Police first said 325 people were arrested, then updated the figure to 320 on Sunday. The Metropolitan police said the detainees were held for allegedly expressing support for an organisation banned under the Terrorism Act. Many protesters have used placards reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”

The arrests increased the campaign’s reported total to about 4,200 people since the ban began. About 2,500 have been charged, but their trials are postponed while the Supreme Court considers whether the proscription is lawful. A separate Edinburgh vigil resulted in no arrests.

To proscribe Palestine Action means the organisation has been formally banned under the Terrorism Act. The article describes it as the first direct action group proscribed under that law. The ban came into effect on 5 July last year and makes alleged public support legally significant.

The practical effect is visible in the arrests. Police detained people outside the US embassy for allegedly expressing support for Palestine Action. Many carried placards saying, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” About 2,500 people have been charged under the Terrorism Act, although the article does not detail every offence involved.

The ban’s legality remains unsettled. The high court ruled that it was unlawful, but the court of appeal overturned that decision. The Supreme Court will now decide whether proscription unlawfully interferes with freedom of speech and protest. Its judgment will determine whether the ban stands.

The largest figure is about 4,200 people arrested for allegedly supporting Palestine Action since proscription began. Defend Our Juries gave that total after Saturday’s protest. It includes people detained during the campaign against the ban, many for displaying supportive placards.

The Metropolitan police’s updated figure for Saturday was 320 detainees, after an initial police statement said 325 people had been arrested. Separately, about 2,500 people have been charged under the Terrorism Act. These figures describe different stages of the legal process, so they should not be added together as a single total.

All trials have been postponed while courts settle whether the ban was lawful. The Supreme Court hearing follows conflicting lower-court decisions: the high court found the proscription unlawful, while the court of appeal overturned that ruling. The final judgment is reserved for a later date.

The issue is that the ban makes alleged support for Palestine Action potentially criminal. A statement supporting an organisation can therefore be treated by police as conduct covered by the Terrorism Act, rather than merely as political expression. This is the central tension between the ban and protest rights.

The clearest example is the repeated placard reading, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Police have arrested people carrying such signs, including elderly people, vicars and grannies mentioned in public debate. The article says most arrests have involved similar placards, though it does not state that every arrest involved one.

The courts must decide whether applying the ban in this way is lawful. The Supreme Court granted the challenge because it was arguable that proscription disproportionately interferes with freedom of speech and protest. The outcome will affect the pending charges and future demonstrations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will settle whether proscribing Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act was lawful. The court is considering whether the ban represents a disproportionate interference with freedom of speech and protest. That decision matters because the pending prosecutions rely on the ban being legally valid.

At present, about 2,500 people have been charged, but every trial has been postponed. This pause prevents the cases from being decided before the central legal question is resolved. If the court finds the proscription unlawful, the government would need to end or change the ban, and the existing charges would face a serious legal problem.

If the court upholds the ban, the postponed trials could proceed under the applicable law. The article does not give a timetable or specify the precise procedure after judgment. It says only that the hearing ends on Thursday and judgment will be reserved.

The government created and defends the proscription, using the Terrorism Act to restrict Palestine Action. Home secretary Shabana Mahmood defended the ban, although she called some arrests uncomfortable. Foreign secretary Ed Miliband said the Supreme Court should examine the issue and that the government was continuing to consider it.

The police apply the ban on the streets. The Metropolitan police arrested people for allegedly expressing support, while Police Scotland made no arrests at an Edinburgh vigil. Protesters and Defend Our Juries challenge the policy through mass civil disobedience and the court case, arguing that speech and protest rights are affected.

The high court ruled the ban unlawful, but the court of appeal overturned that decision. The Supreme Court now reviews the dispute and will give the definitive judgment. Its decision will determine whether the proscription is lawful and what happens to prosecutions that are currently paused.

A democracy has to protect people’s ability to criticise government policy, organise protests and express political views. It also gives the government powers to restrict organisations when it says public safety requires action. The difficult question is whether the restriction goes further than necessary.

This case shows the conflict clearly. The government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, and police arrested people carrying placards supporting it. Defend Our Juries says about 4,200 people have been arrested. The Supreme Court accepted that it was arguable the ban disproportionately interfered with freedom of speech and protest.

The courts provide the balance by testing the government’s decision against the law. The high court rejected the ban, while the court of appeal restored it. The Supreme Court will make the final ruling. Its decision will shape the ban’s future and the pending prosecutions, while showing how far protest rights extend in this dispute.