Pro-Palestine organisers stand trial in landmark UK protest case

The trial of two prominent pro-Palestine figures in the UK began on Thursday following more than a year of delays and a further adjournment earlier this week, in a landmark case for the country on the right to protest.

Ben Jamal, director of the UK's largest pro-Palestine organisation, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), and Chris Nineham, founding member of the Stop the War Coalition (SWC), are standing trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court over a pro-Palestine march held on 18 January last year in London.

Nineham faces one charge of allegedly failing to comply with public assembly conditions, while Jamal faces the same charge and a second allegation of inciting others to breach those conditions.

Jamal has previously said he was informed of the charges hours after attending a voluntary police interview the following day.

Both were charged under the Public Order Act 2023 shortly after the demonstration, an offence that carries penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.  Both defendants pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution opened proceedings by outlining the context leading up to the march, with barrister Kevin Dent telling the court there was "strong evidence" that both men were aware of the conditions imposed by the Metropolitan Police and deliberately breached them.

The 18 January demonstration had initially been planned to gather near the BBC's headquarters in protest the broadcaster's coverage of Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.

However, police imposed conditions restricting the protest to Whitehall and barring any march towards Broadcasting House.

The court heard that the restrictions were introduced over concerns that a march close to London's Central Synagogue on Shabbat could disrupt Sabbath services.

Police also cited complaints from synagogue representatives and nearby businesses, noting that Saturday is one of the busiest shopping days of the week.

Dent told the court the decision was not politically motivated, was not intended to shield the BBC from criticism, and did not amount to opposition to the right to protest.

More than 70 people were arrested during the protest on suspicion of breaching the conditions.

Prosecution alleges breach and incitement

Dent argued that rather than adhering to the restrictions, Jamal and Nineham led a delegation beyond the designated area, causing the first police cordon to "buckle" under the pressure of the crowd.

He alleged that Jamal, through his concluding speech, encouraged supporters to proceed towards the BBC despite knowing the conditions prohibited doing so.

Footage of Jamal's speech was played in court, in which he said leaders and representatives would carry flowers they "intend to lay at the gates of the BBC to protest at their failure to report the truth of genocide and to mark the cost in Palestinian lives of that failure".

Dent described the speech as "carefully worded" and "calculated", claiming that Jamal would have known that walking towards the BBC would encourage others to follow and place pressure on police enforcement.

In his address to supporters, Jamal said: "We will walk peacefully. We will walk in silence. If the police stop us, which they probably will, we will lay those flowers at the feet of the police force to mark their complicity", while asking the crowd to make space for the delegation.

Commander Adam Sloveki, the Gold commander responsible for imposing the protest conditions, told the court he had received complaints from members of the Jewish community expressing "a sense of intimidation" during previous marches.

He said he had "genuinely believed" the concerns raised and felt "obliged" to protect those attending Sabbath services at the Central Synagogue.

Sloveki also referred to concerns raised by local businesses about disruption and economic impact. When asked by the judge whether he could establish a direct link between the protests and reported shop thefts, he said he could not.

Defence challenges legality of conditions

For the defence, barrister Mark Summers argued that the charges should not stand on three grounds.

He told the court that the legal powers relied upon to impose the conditions on 18 January had already been found unlawful by the Court of Appeal in separate proceedings, that the decision to impose the restrictions was "unreasonable" and had failed to properly balance public order concerns with Convention rights. He added that the evidence did not show the defendants knowingly breached the conditions.

Summers said it "cannot possibly be the case" that the pair "knowingly breached" the cordon, arguing they had been following police directions on the day. He described the policing operation as confused and lacking a clear plan, saying the formation of additional cordons caused uncertainty among both officers and protesters.