ABJ, R. v [2026] UKSC 8 (26 February 2026)

Executive summary

The Supreme Court heard two appeals about prosecutions under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, in cases involving alleged support for Hamas, and framed the central question as whether the offence is compatible with article 10 freedom of expression. The judgment sets out the appellants’ speech and the parties’ competing positions, but the source text provided does not include the Court’s final holding or reasoning beyond the issues under appeal.

Key points

• Parties: ABJ and BDN appealed against rulings made in the context of prosecutions brought by the Crown Prosecution Service Counter Terrorism Division.
• Issue: whether section 12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000 is a disproportionate interference with article 10 ECHR, and whether it can be read down if incompatible.
• National security angle: the Secretary of State for the Home Department intervened, expressly noted as responsible for national security and countering terrorism.
• ABJ allegation: a Brighton speech on 8 October 2023 is said to have expressed support for a proscribed organisation, namely Hamas, by a speech about Palestinian resistance.
• BDN allegation: a 17 October 2023 Whitehall protest speech and placard are said to have implied support for Hamas and been reckless as to encouraging support for the organisation.
• No final merits outcome is stated in the provided text; the extract focuses on the certified questions and the factual background.

Why it matters

The case sits directly at the junction of terrorism-law enforcement and political speech, with potential implications for how far authorities can prosecute expressions said to support proscribed organisations. Because the Home Secretary intervened and the offence concerns alleged support for Hamas, it is relevant to national-security enforcement risk and the boundaries of lawful protest speech.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the key point from the extract is that section 12(1A) is being tested against article 10 in a live terrorism prosecution, so actors should expect continued scrutiny of political speech alleged to imply support for proscribed groups. The source text does not disclose the final rule on mens rea, proportionality, or read-down, so no settled change to enforcement can be inferred from this extract alone.