Liverpool Pro-Palestine Protest: Four Arrested Under Terrorism Act

Four Arrested in Liverpool Over Suspected Support for Proscribed Group

Liverpool, UK – Merseyside police have arrested four individuals in Liverpool city center on suspicion of terrorism offences, stemming from a pro-Palestine demonstration on Sunday afternoon. The arrests are connected to the alleged possession of materials supporting the campaign group Palestine Action, which was recently banned as a terrorist organisation.

The regular march,organized by Liverpool Friends of Palestine,saw reports of a small number of protesters displaying material associated with Palestine Action. Merseyside police confirmed the arrests of a 74-year-old woman from Kensington, a 65-year-old man from Brighton-le-Sands, a 28-year-old man from Garston, and a 72-year-old man from Mossley Hill. They where detained on suspicion of wearing or carrying an article in support of a proscribed organisation and have been taken to police stations for questioning.

Thes arrests in Liverpool follow a wave of similar actions across the country over the weekend.Demonstrations protesting the proscription of Palestine Action, which was officially banned in June, led to over 100 arrests nationwide.

In London, the Metropolitan police arrested 55 people in Parliament Square under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying placards in support of Palestine Action. Greater Manchester police reported 16 arrests on saturday on similar grounds,with those individuals remaining in custody. Additionally, eight people were arrested near Truro Cathedral in cornwall, and 17 were detained during a protest in Bristol.

Palestine Action was proscribed following an incident on June 20th where two voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire were damaged. the direct action group claimed responsibility for the incident, which police estimated caused approximately £7 million in damages. home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced the plans to proscribe the group three days later,condemning the vandalism as “disgraceful” and citing the group’s “long history of unacceptable criminal damage.”

The ban means that membership of,or providing support to,Palestine Action is now a criminal offense,carrying a potential penalty of up to 14 years in prison under the Terrorism Act.

What legal precedents exist regarding the interpretation of “encouragement of terrorism” under section 40 of the Terrorism act 2006, and how might they apply to this case?

The Arrests and initial Reports

On July 20, 2025, Merseyside Police arrested four individuals in connection with a pro-Palestine protest held in Liverpool city center. The arrests, which have drawn meaningful scrutiny, were made under Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2006. This section relates to the encouragement of terrorism, raising immediate concerns about the scope and justification of the police action. Initial reports indicate the arrests stemmed from banners and chants displayed during the presentation, specifically those perceived as supportive of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist association in the UK.

The protest itself, organized by various pro-Palestine groups, aimed to raise awareness about the ongoing conflict in Gaza and call for a ceasefire. Witnesses described a peaceful demonstration with several hundred attendees before the arrests were made. Police confirmed the arrests were “pre-planned” and linked to an ongoing inquiry into alleged support for proscribed organizations. The individuals, aged between 28 and 45, remain in custody for questioning.

Understanding Section 40 of the Terrorism Act

section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2006 is a controversial piece of legislation. It criminalizes the publication of a statement or the display of an article with the intention of encouraging terrorism. Crucially, the law doesn’t require a direct link to a specific terrorist act; the intention to encourage terrorism is sufficient for prosecution.

Key aspects of Section 40 include:

Publication: This encompasses a wide range of actions, including displaying banners, chanting slogans, posting online, and distributing leaflets.

Encouragement: the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to encourage terrorism. This is often a complex legal argument.

Proscribed Organizations: The law specifically targets support for organizations banned under UK terrorism legislation.

Context Matters: Courts are expected to consider the context of the statement or display, but the threshold for what constitutes “encouragement” remains a point of contention.

The Specific Allegations & Pro-Palestine Demonstrations

The specific content that triggered the arrests remains under investigation, but reports suggest the banners displayed imagery associated with Hamas and slogans interpreted as supportive of the group’s actions. This has sparked debate about the line between legitimate political expression and incitement to terrorism.

Pro-Palestine demonstrations have been a regular occurrence globally since the escalation of the conflict in Gaza. These protests often feature strong criticism of Israeli government policies and expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people. The use of specific imagery and slogans, though, can be particularly sensitive given the involvement of groups like Hamas.

Legal and Civil Liberties Concerns

Civil liberties groups have voiced concerns about the use of terrorism legislation in relation to peaceful protests. Critics argue that Section 40 is overly broad and can stifle legitimate political dissent. They contend that the law risks criminalizing expressions of sympathy or support for a cause, even if there is no intention to incite violence.

Freedom of Speech: The arrests raise questions about the balance between national security and the right to freedom of expression.

Chilling Effect: Concerns exist that the use of terrorism laws in this context could discourage individuals from participating in future protests.

Due Process: Ensuring fair and obvious investigations is crucial to protect the rights of those arrested.

Proportionality: The application of terrorism legislation must be proportionate to the alleged offense.

Previous Cases & Precedents

This isn’t the first time Section 40 has been used in relation to pro-Palestine demonstrations. Several previous cases have involved individuals being investigated or prosecuted for displaying pro-Palestinian flags or chanting slogans. These cases have frequently enough been met with controversy and legal challenges.

Such as, in 2021, a man was investigated after displaying a Palestinian flag from his window, although the investigation was later dropped. These precedents highlight the complexities of applying terrorism legislation to political expression.

Liverpool FC Forums Closure – A Tangential Note

While seemingly unrelated, the recent closure of the official Liverpool FC Forums (as reported on July 20, 2025) underscores the increasing scrutiny and regulation of online spaces and public discourse. Liverpool FC cited a desire to improve fan experience and explore new technologies, but the move reflects a broader trend of platforms attempting to manage potentially controversial content. This highlights the challenges of balancing free speech with the need to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies.

Ongoing Investigation and Next Steps

Merseyside Police have stated that the investigation is ongoing and that further arrests are possible. The four individuals currently in custody are being questioned by counter-terrorism officers. The police are also reviewing social media activity and other evidence related to the protest.

Key developments to watch for include:

1. Charges: Whether the arrested individuals will be formally charged with an offense under Section 40.
2. Evidence: The specific evidence the prosecution intends to present to demonstrate intent to encourage terrorism.
3. Legal Challenges: Potential legal challenges to the application of Section 40 in this case.
4. Public Reaction: Continued public debate and scrutiny of the arrests and the broader implications for freedom of expression.

The case is likely to be closely watched by civil liberties groups, legal experts, and pro-Palestine activists. it raises significant questions about the limits