UK court finds pro-Palestine organisers Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham guilty of breaching police rules

Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham, two prominent pro-Palestine activists in the UK, were found guilty of public order offences on Wednesday, in what has been described as a chilling measure against pro-Palestine activism.

Standing trial at Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Judge Daniel Sternberg announced the verdict, to the courtroom's silent shock, with Jamal, donning his signature keffiyeh, and Nineham standing in dismay.

"I think when you're actually being confronted with the verdict, I'm very angry," Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), told The New Arab outside the court. "I'm angry at the fundamental injustice here and what lies behind it, but I'm also angry at the way the case has been conducted.

"We had an indication of how this trial was going from the interventions the judge had made. So on one level, there's no surprise today."

Standing outside the court in front of a sea of journalists, activists and supporters, Jamal and Nineham made it clear they were unhappy with the verdict, announcing they would appeal.

"I'm feeling fine. I mean, obviously, this is a setback, this is a blow," Chris Nineham, founding member of the Stop the War Coalition (SWC), told The New Arab. "This is a setback for the whole movement."

"I think the whole purpose of this judgment is to send a chilling message that it's dangerous to protest."

While Nineham faced one charge of allegedly failing to comply with public assembly conditions, Jamal faced two charges - the same offence as Nineham and allegedly inciting others to breach those conditions.

Taking the defendants' previous good character into account, the activists, who did not take the stand during the trial, were given conditional discharges, with Jamal receiving 18 months and Nineham 12 months. Both were also ordered to pay £7,500 in prosecution costs, plus a £26 surcharge.

While the court recognised a fundamental right to protest, it said this right was not absolute and did not permit breaches of lawfully imposed conditions.

"Fundamentally, this is about suppression of the right to protest and the delegitimisation of the Palestinian struggle for liberation," Jamal told The New Arab.

"Our government continues its complicity in supporting Israel, diplomatically, politically, economically and militarily. And instead of ending that complicity, it devotes its energy to finding new ways to suppress the right to protest."

Nineham said the court's decision was a serious attack on wider efforts to restrict the right to assembly, protest, and freedom of speech in the UK.

Jamal was also found guilty of inciting others to breach the conditions, with the Crown finding that his speech amounted to suggestion, persuasion, and inducement encouraging others to do so.

When asked how he feels about appealing, Nineham said he's feeling "fine" about it.

"I'd be very worried if we weren't appealing, to be honest," Nineham said, adding that he believed there was no case to answer and that the protest had been peaceful, with participants "literally" invited by police to pass through the cordon.

Jamal said, "Does this knock faith in the basic justice system? Yes. Did I come into this naively thinking the courts always make the right decisions? No. But we know that the case that we have is a legitimate case."

"We have to go through it once more, this time in a Crown Court, and assert the facts and the truth again in the hope and belief that justice will prevail. If it doesn't, then there are serious questions for those within the justice system because it matters. I still retain faith in democratic processes."

"We'll appeal, and if we lose, then we keep fighting."

The verdict marks the end of a trial that spanned more than three weeks, after being postponed in July last year. Judge Sternberg had earlier ruled on 17 March that there was a case to answer, without providing detailed reasoning.

The pair were initially charged on 18 January last year, accused of breaching conditions imposed by the Metropolitan Police during a pro-Palestine march held the same day, offences that carry penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty the following month, with the trial officially taking place on 26 February the following year.

"I'm very disappointed in the verdict," British politician Jeremy Corbyn, who also took part in the protest, told The New Arab. "It's an attack on free speech and civil liberties, and it's an attack on two splendid people who've spent their lives campaigning for peace and for justice for the Palestinian people."

"We won't be cowed, we won't be beaten, we won't be silenced. We carry on."

Corbyn marched with the leaders and was questioned by the police, but received no formal reprimand. However, Sophie Bolt, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) General Secretary, was also charged with public order offences and will face trial.

"This is happening because the Palestine movement is so strong, it's so effective, and it's having so much political influence," Sophie Bolt told The New Arab.

In the court, along with lawyers, reporters and supporters of Jamal and Nineham, was also Jamal's daughter, Martha, who expressed her disappointment with the court's decision.

"[The verdict] was hard to hear," Martha Jamal tells The New Arab. "I think you sort of prepare for the worst."

"I think the charges are outrageous. I think the way the case has been handled the entire time, the evidence that's been ignored, the things that have been overlooked, have been extremely unacceptable."

Over 50,000 protesters marched in London on 18 January, calling for a Free Palestine. However, over 70 people were arrested for allegedly breaching restrictions that banned protesters from marching towards the BBC headquarters in Portland Place.

Conditions were placed on the protest after police were told the planned route, which passed near London's Central Synagogue, could disrupt Jewish Shabbat services, a move that faced heavy criticism from the Palestine coalition and its leaders.

Towards the end of the march, Jamal said a group of organisers and members of the Jewish bloc would lay flowers at the BBC in protest of the conditions if police allowed them to proceed - a speech the court found amounted to incitement.

A video of the speech was shown in court, in which 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."

Defence barrister Mark Summers KC argued throughout the trial that the incitement charges were "ludicrous", saying Jamal made clear they would not proceed unless permitted.

As protesters moved forward, including Nineham, they were arrested, with the defence noting this was the only violent incident that day.

While Summers argued the conditions imposed were unlawful, the court found they were lawful and properly applied, with Commander Adam Slonecki, who imposed them, having "acted under valid statutory powers and applied the correct test".

Summers also argued that confusion among police led to protesters being directed through the cordon, pointing to video footage of an officer saying: "If you would like to make your way through, please move through."

However, the Crown said the defendants "clearly knew the conditions" given their leadership roles and breached them upon entering Trafalgar Square. It added that police withdrawals were tactical and did not amount to relaxing the restrictions.

While the UK government continues to place restrictions on pro-Palestine activism, including the designation and then reversal of the proscription ban on Palestine Action, criminalising the term "globalise the intifada" and the Met police's announcement of the resumption of arrests of Palestine Action protesters, many note an escalation in the criminalisation of pro-Palestine activism amid Israel's ongoing war on Gaza.