Palestine Action protest arrests: what UK law says and what remains contested

More than 50 arrests in an ongoing operation

Merseyside Police said more than 50 people had been arrested by 8:02 p.m. on September 27 at a Defend Our Juries protest near the Wheel of Liverpool, outside the Labour Party conference. Police said some participants displayed material supporting Palestine Action and that arrests were being made on suspicion of carrying or wearing an item in support of a proscribed organization. [1][2]

Al Jazeera reported that more than 250 people joined the sit-in and that Massive Attack musician Robert Del Naja was among those arrested. An earlier Independent report counted two arrests while the operation was still beginning. The figures describe different moments, not necessarily conflicting final totals; the police number was explicitly provisional. [2][3][1]

What the law currently does

Palestine Action has been listed as a proscribed organization under the Terrorism Act 2000 since July 2025. Section 13 of that act creates offences involving, among other conduct, displaying an article in circumstances that arouse reasonable suspicion of membership or support. An arrest on suspicion is not a conviction, and the reviewed sources did not establish that every person arrested would be charged. [4][5][1]

The ban is still legally operative. A High Court judgment in February found the proscription unlawful, but the Court of Appeal upheld the ban in June. The UK Supreme Court agreed in July to hear a further appeal. That pending case means the issue is unsettled at the highest level, not that the current ban has already been suspended. [6][7]

The civil-liberties dispute

Amnesty International UK called the arrests an attack on freedom of speech and urged the government to reform protest laws. UN human-rights experts had previously described the proscription as a misuse of counterterrorism law. Those are advocacy and expert assessments, not court judgments in the Liverpool cases. [8][9]

Police said they respect lawful protest while seeking to keep the peace and apply the law consistently. The central legal question is not whether pro-Palestinian views may be expressed in general, but whether particular signs or conduct crossed the statutory line for supporting the named proscribed organization. That question depends on evidence and context in each case. [1][5]

What remains unknown

The police notice said the operation was ongoing. The reviewed material does not provide a final arrest total, a complete list of alleged conduct, charging decisions, bail outcomes or a hearing date for the Supreme Court appeal. Protesters, their families and the wider public therefore face both immediate case-by-case uncertainty and a broader unresolved test of the proscription regime. [1][6]

How the sources compare