R v ABJ; R v BDN [2026] UKSC 8
•February 26, 2026
0
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the UK’s ability to prosecute reckless encouragement of terrorist support while setting a clear, limited boundary for free‑speech claims, shaping future counter‑radicalisation and media litigation.
Key Takeaways
- •Supreme Court upholds Section 121A as proportionate restriction.
- •Conviction requires expressed support, knowledge, and reckless encouragement.
- •Mere alignment with organization’s aims insufficient for terrorism offense.
- •Judges no longer need separate proportionality assessments for Article 10.
- •Jury must prove all offense elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The UK Supreme Court resolved two pending appeals, R v ABJ and R v BDN, concerning section 121A of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Court examined whether the statutory offense—expressing support for a proscribed organization while recklessly encouraging others—constitutes a disproportionate interference with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment clarified that liability hinges on three distinct ingredients: (1) an expressed opinion that is supportive of a designated terrorist group, (2) the defendant’s knowledge that the expression is supportive, and (3) reckless disregard of the risk that the audience will be encouraged to back the group. The justices held that, when these elements are satisfied, the restriction is a prescribed, legitimate, and necessary measure in a democratic society, eliminating the need for trial judges to conduct separate proportionality assessments.
In emphasizing the narrow scope of the offense, the Court noted that merely sharing the political aims of a proscribed organization—such as advocating for Palestinian statehood—does not satisfy the statutory threshold. The justices also referenced European Court of Human Rights precedent, confirming that the language of section 121A is sufficiently clear and comparable to other counter‑terrorism statutes that have survived human‑rights scrutiny.
The ruling reinforces the enforceability of speech‑related terrorism provisions, placing the burden on juries to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt and obligating sentencing judges to ensure proportionality. Practitioners, media outlets, and activists must now navigate a clarified legal landscape where reckless encouragement of terrorist support is criminalized without additional Article 10 balancing tests.
Original Description
R v ABJ (Appellant)
Case ID: UKSC/2025/0079
R v BDN (Appellant)
Case ID: UKSC/2025/0059
Judgment date: 26 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 8
On appeal from [2024] EWCA Crim 1597
The appellants, ABJ and BDN, have both been charged with criminal offences under section 12(1A). They are alleged to have expressed an opinion or belief that is supportive of Hamas, one of the proscribed organisations listed in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Neither ABJ nor BDN’s cases have gone to trial, so the facts have not yet been established. However, the following facts are agreed for the purposes of these appeals.
ABJ gave a speech on 8 October 2023, the day after the attacks on Israel by Hamas, in which over 1,200 people were killed and 251 people were taken hostage. The speech was given in Brighton city centre as part of a Palestine Solidarity Campaign event. It lasted about four minutes and included words describing the events of 7 October as “a victory”. Police officers present at the event took no action, but ABJ was arrested and later charged after edited footage of her speech was published online by the Daily Mail.
BDN’s indictment arises out of an incident on 17 October 2023, when he stood outside the gates to Downing Street holding a placard and a small loudhailer. One side of the placard read: “HAMAS is the vanguard of the Resistance – Avi Shlaim”. The other side read: “You won’t destroy HAMAS – Tony Blair.” BDN asked a passer-by to film him using BDN’s phone. He then set off a short alarm sound on the loudhailer and used it to express his support for “the physical force resistance in Palestine” in the presence of passing members of the public. The film was never livestreamed or shared by any means. BDN was arrested later the same day, while holding the placard in another part of Westminster.
Preparatory hearings were held in both cases to clarify the applicable law. In ABJ’s case, the judge held that, if the ingredients of the section 12(1A) offence were proved, there was no need for the jury to conduct a separate assessment of whether a conviction would interfere disproportionately with ABJ’s right to freedom of expression under article 10. In BDN’s case, the judge rejected BDN’s contention that the section 12(1A) offence was too uncertain to be “prescribed by law” as required by the Convention. The judge also held that establishing the ingredients of the section 12(1A) offence was sufficient to ensure that a conviction was compatible with BDN’s right to freedom of expression under article 10.
Both ABJ and BDN appealed; their appeals were heard together by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, but certified the point of law of general importance set out in the “issues” above as being involved in each case.
The issue is:
Do the terms of section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 represent a disproportionate interference with the appellants’ right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? If so, is it possible to read down the terms of the offence to make them compatible?
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses ABJ and BDN's appeals.
More information is available on our website:
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...