London police report 139 arrests at a Palestine Action protest outside the US Embassy as Supreme Court hearings on the group's ban approach.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM — Police reported 139 arrests outside the U.S. Embassy on Saturday during a protest over the ban on Palestine Action, days before the Supreme Court hears a challenge to the ban.
The Metropolitan Police initially announced 48 arrests during the demonstration on 31 October 2026, before issuing a later update raising the total to 139. The operation took place near the United States Embassy in Nine Elms, south London, where demonstrators gathered to challenge the government's decision to outlaw the direct-action group Palestine Action.
Police said most of the initial arrests involved suspected offences related to expressions of support for an organisation proscribed under Britain's counterterrorism legislation. Officers continued making arrests throughout the afternoon as protesters displayed placards, watched fellow demonstrators being detained and challenged the legal restrictions on their activities.
The demonstration came just days before the United Kingdom's Supreme Court was scheduled to examine the legality of the government's decision to ban Palestine Action, placing the arrests at the centre of a wider dispute over national security powers and freedom of expression.
Arrests Increase as Police Enforce Restrictions Outside US Embassy
Saturday's gathering was organised by Defend Our Juries, a campaign group opposing the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
Participants assembled near the American diplomatic compound, holding signs that openly expressed support for Palestine Action. Some demonstrators remained seated while officers approached individuals suspected of violating the legislation governing proscribed organisations.
The Associated Press reported that more than 100 people participated in the protest. Defend Our Juries subsequently estimated that approximately 400 people attended, although that organiser-provided figure was not independently established as an official attendance count.
Footage and photographs from the scene showed police removing protesters from the gathering and escorting them towards waiting vehicles. Some demonstrators applauded those being detained, while others chanted slogans supporting Palestinians.
The Metropolitan Police initially confirmed 48 arrests and said most involved suspected expressions of support for a banned organisation. A later statement, reported by The Guardian, raised the figure to 139, with police indicating that officers were still present and making arrests.
The two figures reflect successive stages of the same operation rather than separate incidents.
The arrests did not, by themselves, establish that those detained had committed criminal offences. An arrest allows police to investigate an alleged offence; any subsequent prosecution requires separate legal decisions, and criminal responsibility must be determined through the judicial process.
Why Police Warned Demonstrators Before the Rally
The Metropolitan Police had announced its enforcement plans on Friday, 30 October, following the organisers' decision to stage a public demonstration outside the embassy.
In its advance statement, the force explained that openly expressing support for Palestine Action could constitute an offence because of the organisation's legal designation.
Commander Adam Slonecki, who led the police operation, said enforcement would not necessarily be restricted to people displaying supportive placards.
The police also warned that individuals considered to be organising, directing or providing significant logistical support for activities involving suspected criminal offences could face investigation or arrest.
The statement marked an unusually explicit warning to prospective participants before the demonstration began.
Police maintained that their objective was to enforce legislation relating to prohibited organisations rather than prevent lawful expression of political opinion.
Defend Our Juries, however, argued that the operation illustrated the consequences of applying counterterrorism legislation to public demonstrations. The organisers have challenged the government's position that expressions of support for Palestine Action should trigger criminal enforcement.
The disagreement raises a legal distinction: opposing a government policy, expressing solidarity with Palestinians and supporting a specific proscribed organisation are not necessarily identical acts under British law.
Whether particular conduct crosses the criminal threshold depends on the applicable legal provisions, the circumstances and the evidence available.
How Palestine Action Became a Proscribed Organisation
Palestine Action was established in 2020 and has carried out direct-action campaigns targeting companies and facilities associated with military equipment supplied to Israel.
The organisation describes its objectives in terms of disrupting businesses it regards as connected to Israeli military operations.
Its activities have included operations against facilities operated by defence manufacturer Elbit Systems UK.
In 2024, activists entered an Elbit-related factory and damaged equipment. A separate incident in June 2025 involved a Royal Air Force base, where activists damaged military tanker aircraft, including by spraying paint and using tools against equipment.
The British government's subsequent decision to prohibit Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 represented a significant escalation in its legal treatment of the organisation.
The decision was announced to Parliament on 23 June 2025, and the implementing prohibition took effect on 5 July following parliamentary approval.
Under the legislation, the Home Secretary may designate an organisation as proscribed when the statutory conditions relating to involvement in terrorism are satisfied.
Those provisions extend beyond violence against individuals and can encompass serious property damage when the remaining requirements of the statutory definition are met.
The designation therefore raises questions about the distinction between criminal property damage, politically motivated direct action and conduct falling within the legal definition of terrorism.
The government has defended its use of the proscription powers. Critics maintain that the designation imposes restrictions extending well beyond the acts of property damage that prompted official concern.
What British Counterterrorism Law Means for Protesters
The Terrorism Act 2000 establishes several distinct offences relating to proscribed organisations.
Membership of a banned organisation can constitute an offence under Section 11, while Section 12 addresses specified forms of support, including certain statements that encourage support in circumstances covered by the legislation.
The maximum penalty for some relevant offences can reach 14 years' imprisonment, although that figure is a statutory maximum rather than an automatic sentence.
The distinction matters because the criminal provisions do not establish a universal prohibition on discussing Palestine Action, reporting on its activities or criticising its designation.
Political expression must be assessed against the elements of the relevant offence.
For example, disagreement with the government's decision to prohibit an organisation does not automatically prove membership of that organisation. Equally, a political message may raise legal issues when its wording and surrounding circumstances fall within the statutory restrictions on support.
Police officers make initial enforcement decisions, but prosecutors and courts have separate responsibilities in determining whether charges are justified and whether an offence has been proved.
The continuing dispute also involves freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, rights protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Those rights are qualified rather than absolute. Restrictions may be lawful when they satisfy the relevant legal requirements, including necessity and proportionality.
The central controversy is therefore not simply whether governments can restrict support for organisations involved in prohibited conduct. It also concerns how far those restrictions may extend into peaceful demonstrations, political messaging and public criticism of government decisions.
Supreme Court Hearing Could Determine the Ban's Legal Future
The arrests occurred immediately before a major hearing concerning Palestine Action's legal status.
The Supreme Court has scheduled proceedings for 4 and 5 November 2026 in the case brought by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori against the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The case concerns whether the government lawfully exercised its powers under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 when it added the organisation to the prohibited list.
Earlier litigation produced conflicting judicial conclusions.
The Divisional Court found that the proscription decision was unlawful, identifying issues involving the Home Secretary's policy and the compatibility of the decision with protections for expression and assembly.
The Court of Appeal subsequently disagreed and upheld the government's decision, concluding that the designation was lawful.
The Supreme Court granted permission for a further appeal, but only on a limited ground.
According to the court's published case record, permission was granted on the first proposed ground and refused on the second. That procedural distinction limits the scope of the issues that may be considered in the forthcoming appeal.
The Supreme Court proceedings will examine the legality of the government decision. They are not a criminal trial of the individuals arrested outside the embassy on Saturday.
Nor does a scheduled hearing mean the designation will automatically be suspended or overturned.
Until the legal position changes through the appropriate process, the existing prohibition continues to have consequences for police operations and potential criminal prosecutions.
Edinburgh Vigil Highlights Wider Enforcement Questions
The London demonstration was accompanied by a separate gathering outside the United States Consulate in Edinburgh.
Participants displayed messages expressing support for Palestine Action, reflecting opposition to the designation beyond England's capital.
Police Scotland reported no arrests at the Edinburgh event in its initial account.
The force nevertheless indicated that officers were examining evidence involving individuals who had displayed messages or clothing apparently supporting the proscribed organisation.
Authorities said further action could be considered if their review identified grounds for enforcement.
The different immediate outcomes in London and Edinburgh do not necessarily indicate different legal standards.
The relevant counterterrorism legislation applies across the United Kingdom, while policing decisions depend on available evidence, operational circumstances and assessments made by the responsible force.
The Scottish gathering also demonstrates that the debate over Palestine Action has developed into a national issue involving not only the organisation's activities but also the treatment of people publicly challenging its designation.
Why the US Embassy Became a Focus of the Protest
The location of Saturday's demonstration gave the dispute an international dimension.
The United States has maintained close defence ties with Israel, while Palestine Action's activities have focused on British facilities and businesses connected to the Israeli military supply chain.
In August 2026, the United States announced sanctions against Palestine Action, adding another element to the international legal and political dispute surrounding the organisation.
Demonstrating outside the American embassy allowed protesters to draw attention to Washington's relationship with Israel and to the separate measures taken against Palestine Action by British and American authorities.
Defend Our Juries criticised the British police response and suggested that the authorities were seeking to avoid embarrassment to the United States. That characterisation represents the organisers' position; it is not an established explanation of police motives.
The Metropolitan Police's published justification focused instead on the enforcement of domestic counterterrorism legislation.
Although the protest took place outside an American diplomatic facility, the arrests were carried out by British officers exercising powers under British law.
The setting consequently connected an international political dispute with a specifically British legal controversy over the limits of public protest.
Arrest Decisions and Court Proceedings Remain Under Scrutiny
Saturday's operation leaves two separate legal developments to monitor.
The first concerns the people arrested outside the embassy. Police and prosecutors will have to determine how the available evidence affects any individual investigation, potential charge or decision to take no further action.
The second concerns the broader challenge to the proscription itself.
The Supreme Court hearing scheduled for 4–5 November will address the legality of the designation through the judicial process, independently of whether particular demonstrators are prosecuted.
The distinction is important because the outcome of the constitutional and administrative law dispute cannot be assumed from the arrests, just as the arrests cannot establish that the original government decision was lawful.
For now, the police operation illustrates the practical consequences of Britain's decision to use counterterrorism powers against Palestine Action.
The reported increase from 48 to 139 arrests during a single afternoon also shows how rapidly enforcement totals can change during an ongoing demonstration.
As the individual investigations proceed and the Supreme Court prepares to hear the appeal, the central unresolved issue remains the lawful boundary between protecting national security and permitting political expression in public spaces.
COMMENTS