Landmark trial of UK pro-Palestine organisers concludes, awaits verdict

The trial of Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, two prominent UK pro-Palestine activists and organisers, officially concluded on Tuesday, with a verdict set to be announced on 1 April.

Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), the UK's largest pro-Palestine organisation, and Nineham, founding member of the Stop the War Coalition (SWC), were charged over a march held on 18 January last year in London.

Both Nineham and Jamal face one charge of allegedly failing to comply with public assembly conditions, while Jamal was also charged with inciting others to breach those conditions.

If found guilty, both could face penalties, including a fine or imprisonment.

The trial, which has spanned a little over three weeks, continued on Monday at Westminster Magistrates' Court after being adjourned on 4 March, with both sides arguing over whether there is a case to answer.

Defence Barrister Mark Summers KC argued that the judge should dismiss the case as an unlawful prosecution, listing 12 reasons. He asserted that the regulations applied on the 18 January march were unlawful, citing case law to argue that the judge has the responsibility to deal with public law.

The defence noted that the case’s first witness, Gold Commander Slonecki - who applied the controversial conditions and the exclusion zone near the BBC headquarters - applied the wrong definition of "disruption", which was struck down by the High Court.

Summers said to Judge Sternberg: “If you are prepared to follow the Crown in dismissing human rights, all I can say is bon voyage, and I’ll see you in the High Court."

Prosecuting Barrister Kevin Dent asserted that Slonecki had "overwhelming evidence” to implement the conditions on the march, claiming the police evaluated that there would be "serious disruption" on the day of the march.

The conditions imposed prevented protesters from marching to the BBC to protest the broadcaster’s coverage of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.

After some deliberation, District Judge Daniel Sternberg ruled there was a case to answer on all charges, prompting gasps in the court, without explaining his reasoning.

Following the announcement, Summers says he will move directly to final speeches because the Crown case is "hopeless". Jamal and Nineham were not called to take the stand as defence witnesses.

Dent argued that the activists “ought to have known” or knew about the conditions that were imposed by the police from previous meetings and the conditions being made public.

Regarding Jamal’s incitement charge, Dent referred to the activist's speech on the day of the march, suggesting that Jamal knew of the conditions, was clearly angered by them, and indicated a “direct intention to breach the conditions”, as well as the activist’s anger towards the restrictions in previous meetings.

Defence barrister Summers asserted that the incitement charge against Jamal was “ludicrous”, saying that the activists’ speech did not call for the conditions to be broken.

Summers also noted it is permitted under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act to criticise the police regarding the conditions.

During Summers’ closing speech, which continued on Tuesday, he laid out two reasons why both activists should be acquitted: first, that the conditions were unlawful, and second, that the defendants were beckoned through the police cordon, believing the conditions had been amended.

The barrister  noted that Commander Slonecki never considered other options that did not involve the conditions. He also spoke of the activists' "long record" of successfully organising some of the largest peaceful demonstrations in British history, and questioned why they would attempt to tarnish that.

The defence included videos of the march and the incidents.

While the prosecution suggested the police "buckled" under the pressure of the protesters and did a "tactical retreat", the defence said the police allowed the delegation to filter through.

Following almost two days of closing statements, Judge Sternberg announced he would not be giving a verdict on Tuesday, but would do so on 1 April.