Posted by ccld201
7 August 2026[2026] UKSC 8 – 26 February 2026
Key words
Criminal Law; Human Rights; Freedom of Expression; Art.10 European Convention on Human Rights; Terrorism Offences
Overview
Appeal of Case [2024] EWCA Crim 1597
The case concerned an appeal based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) against convictions for expressing support for a proscribed organisation, contrary to s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Both cases specifically concerned support for Hamas.
It was argued by the appellants that the restriction was a disproportionate interference with their freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR. The court referred to ‘the dignity of victims of terrorism’ in their analysis of ECHR jurisprudence justifying restrictions to freedom of expression. The court held firstly that there was not an inherent disproportionate interference, and, secondly, that enforcement of ECHR rights did not require that a prosecutor demonstrates to the jury that a conviction is not a disproportionate interference.
Key Issues
Whether the prohibition of an opinion or belief that is supportive of Hamas (one of the proscribed organisations listed in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000) was a disproportionate interference with article 10 ECHR rights.
Whether each conviction must be demonstrated to be proportionate, rather than the statutory provision as a whole.
In relation to whether the interference is proportionate, the court considered the 2008 ECHR judgment in Leroy v France in which it was held relevant that the expression in favour of the violence of the 11th September 2001 attacks, which undermines the ‘dignity of the victims’.
Meaning and significance of human dignity for the Supreme Court in the judgment of Lord Reed
[118] Two judgments to which the judge referred in the case of the second appellant are of greater relevance to the present situation. The first is the case of Leroy v France. The applicant was a cartoonist. On 11 September 2001, the day of the attack on the World Trade Centre, he drew a cartoon showing the attack, with the words “Nous en avions tous rêvé … Le Hamas l’a fait” (“We have all dreamt of it … Hamas did it”), a parody of an advertising slogan used by Sony. The cartoon was published two days later. The applicant maintained that it was intended to express his anti-Americanism and to illustrate the decline of American imperialism. He was convicted of complicity in apologie du terrorisme, and fined. […]
[119] The European court accepted that there was an interference with freedom of expression, that it was prescribed by law, and that it pursued legitimate aims, namely the interests of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime (para 36). In considering whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the court noted the essential role played by the press in the proper functioning of a political democracy, and the fact that the events of 11 September 2001 fell within the scope of a debate of general interest (paras 40–41). However, it considered that the cartoonist had expressed his support and moral solidarity with those he presumed to be the perpetrators of the attacks. By the terms used, he judged favourably the violence perpetrated against thousands of civilians and undermined the dignity of the victims. The court approved the opinion of the French court that the applicant’s intentions were irrelevant to the prosecution (para 43). [emphasis added]
Follow-up reading:
“Breaking Down the Court of Appeal Judgement on Palestine Action’s Proscription”, Liberty (Intervener in Case), 15.06.2026
Alistair Mills, “The Interpretation of Policy and the Proscription of Palestine Action”,, UK Constitutional Law Association, 23.06.2026
Qerim Qerimi, “Rule of Law in the Service of Democracy and Dignity: The Updated Rule of Law Checklist of the Venice Commission”, Dignity&Democracy Blog 09.02.2026
Neil Parpworth, “Does the Offence of Expressing Support for a Proscribed Organisation Require Knowledge of Proscription and a Proportionality Direction to a Jury?: ABJ v R and BDN v R [2025] EWCA Crim 1597” (2025) The Journal of Criminal Law, 89(3)
Jonathan Hall is a second-year Law (LLB) undergraduate at the University of Exeter with an interest in the human rights jurisprudence, especially concerning human dignity.