Kneecap: What's the terror charge 'Mo Chara' is facing, what's the defence and the sentence?

KNEECAP’S LIAM ÓG Ó hAnnaidh was last night charged with an offence under the UK’s Terrorism Act and is due in court on 18 June.

The charge comes following a video that was uncovered and distributed of a gig the Belfast rap band did in the O2 Forum, Kentish Town, London last November.

After various news articles were written about the video last month, it was reviewed by UK police and following that an official investigation was launched.

On foot of that investigation, the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service has now authorised a charge against Ó hAnnaidh by way of postal requisition.

This method means that an individual is informed by post of a charge they face and the date they need to attend court. It is essentially a court summons and is commonly used instead of arresting an individual, which costs money and police time.

However, a failure to attend court at the assigned time would likely lead to an arrest warrant. Ó hAnnaidh is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, 18 June.

In its statement last night, Met Police said that Ó hAnnaidh was charged with “displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah, a proscribed organisation”.

The UK proscribes 81 organisations which it says are “concerned in terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2000, with 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation.

When an organisation is proscribed, various offences are attached to activities relating to that organisation, with Ó hAnnaidh specifically charged with section 13(1)(b) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In UK legislation, that section reads:

A person in a public place commits an offence if he— (b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

The legislation also outlines potential penalties upon conviction, which could be up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

There will not be a jury determining the verdict but a district judge instead.

Advertisement

‘Strict liability’ 

Section 13 of the Terrorism Act is a ‘strict liability offence’, which means that the motivation or intent of the accused does not have to be proven by the prosecution.

A limited mental element is required in that the defendant must know that he or she is wearing or carrying or displaying the relevant article.

Instead, what needs to be proven is that the accused displayed the article in a way that would lead to a “reasonable suspicion” that they supported the organisation.  

In a similar case, this element of ‘strict liability’ was previously appealed to the UK Supreme Court by three men who had been convicted of carrying the flag of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a proscribed organisation. 

Among the arguments the three made was that the offence under Section 13 was incompatible with the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

In a judgement issued in January 2022, the panel of five UK justices determined that Section 13 was an interference in the ECHR but that it was not incompatible, instead ruling that there was “sufficient justification for the restriction on freedom of expression”. 

Outlining the reasons for this, the judges said: 

“The essential point about Section 13 is that it is a highly focused provision aimed at ensuring that proscribed organisations do not obtain a foothold in the UK through the agency of people in this country.”

It is about a restriction, or deterrence, designed to avoid violence, not the prevention of a situation in which there is an immediate threat of violence or disorder. 

Previous cases

London

The specific charge facing Ó hAnnaidh was also brought in another well-publicised case last year, when three women were convicted following a high-profile pro-Palestinian march in London.

In February 2024, Heba Alhayek, Pauline Ankunda and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo were convicted after they were accused of displaying images of “paragliders” during the march, which took place in the week after the 7 October 2023 attack in Israel by Hamas.

The three were charged and convicted under the Terrorism Act with carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they supported Hamas.

In this instance the judge said that, while he did not see any evidence that the women supported Hamas, “it matters not” because it came down to what a “reasonable person” would think of the images they displayed.

Lawyers for the women argued that they were actually displaying images of a parachute emoji rather than paragliders, and that flying-related images were a common symbol of peace in the region.

Related Reads

'We will fight you in your court. We will win' - Kneecap slams 'political policing' after terror charge

One member of Kneecap charged with terrorism offence by London police

Judge Tan Ikram agreed the image had been “wrongly described” as a paraglider by the police and prosecution but that he did not believe a reasonable person would interpret the image “merely as a symbol of freedom.”

Despite their conviction, the judge “decided not to punish” the women and handed them a 12-month conditional discharge, meaning they will not face punishment unless they commit further offences.

This sentence was criticised at the time by then home secretary Suella Braverman.

Derry

Custodial sentences have previously been handed down for convictions under the same act, however. 

In Derry in August 2013, two men were handed jail terms after the PSNI investigated a mural that was painted on the window of premises on Chamberlain Street in the city before the previous Christmas. 

The display featured a masked snowman appearing to press the button on a command wire with the accompanying words “they haven’t gone away ye know”. 

Jordan Devine and William McDonnell were charged under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for “wearing clothing, or having article(s) as a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”. 

The men were sentenced to three months and four months respectively. 

Mo Chara 

Ó hAnnaidh, who uses the stage name Mo Chara, has not spoken individually since the charge was confirmed, but Kneecap as a band issued a statement this morning in which they said they would contest the charges.

“We deny this ‘offence’ and will vehemently defend ourselves,” the statement said, “This is political policing. This is a carnival of distraction.”

The band have come to international prominence for their outspokenness on Israel’s ongoing bombing and siege of Gaza which has killed over 50,000 people and has brought the enclave to the brink of famine.

“Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries,” the band said today.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal