Supreme Court delivers important judgment concerning proscription offences

The Supreme Court has today handed down judgment in the conjoined appeals of R v ABJ & BDN [2026] UKSC 8. Jacob Bindman acted for BDN (led by Henry Blaxland KC, Garden Court Chambers in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court), instructed by Vajahat Sharif at Tuckers Solicitors. The case concerned the compatibility with Art.10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“the Convention”) of the offence of ‘Expressing Support for a Proscribed Organisation’ under s.12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000.

The Supreme Court held that the offence is sufficiently clear to be “prescribed by law” and does not representant a disproportionate interference with a defendant’s rights under Art.10 of the Convention, provided each of the elements of the offence is proved to the criminal standard. 

The Court stressed that judges must be robust in exercising their power to stop a case in which a reasonable jury could not be sure that any of the elements had been proved. In addition, the Court gave important guidance on each of the elements of the offence, stressing that s.12(1A) does not prohibit expression of opinions or beliefs that are supportive of the aims of a proscribed organisation, only those that can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be supportive of the organisation itself. The guidance is likely to be particularly important in relation to the protection of legitimate discussions which seek to place events in Gaza in the context of the Israeli occupation and the increased use of the s.12(1A) offence following the October 2023 attacks.

As this was an interlocutory appeal, BDN’s case will now return to the Central Criminal Court for trial.

The judgment is available here.