Pro-Palestine campaigners have condemned the conviction of two leading activists – Chris Nineham and Ben Jamal – as “extraordinary and shocking” and “a huge setback for civil liberties,” warning the decision could have far-reaching consequences for protest rights.
Jamal, of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Nineham, of the Stop The War Coalition, were found guilty today at Westminster Magistrates Court of breaching protest restrictions imposed under the Public Order Act.
Jamal was also convicted of inciting others to breach those conditions.
Both organisers received conditional discharges — 18 months for Jamal and 12 months for Nineham — and were ordered to pay £7,500 each in prosecution costs.
‘Designed to chill ongoing opposition’
Police said both men had been aware a pro-Palestine protest in January 2025 was not permitted to leave Whitehall, but led a march towards Trafalgar Square in an attempt to reach the BBC.
But in a strongly worded statement issued after the ruling, supporters of Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham said: “Today’s guilty verdicts… are extraordinary and shocking, and a huge setback for civil liberties.”
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
They confirmed both men will appeal: “The pair have made clear that they will be appealing these verdicts and they have the full support of the Palestine Coalition in that.”
A key argument presented by the defence was that restrictions placed on the January 18, 2025 protest — preventing a march to the BBC — were unlawful.
They criticised District Judge Daniel Sternberg for dismissing that argument, adding:
“Extraordinarily… [he] informed the Court that he was not obliged to give any reasons for his decision.”
The statement set out the organisers’ account of events on the day, emphasising the intended symbolism of the protest: “From the stage that day, Ben Jamal explained that a delegation… would walk peacefully in a symbolic protest towards the BBC to lay flowers… Ben made clear that, if stopped by the police, the flowers would be laid at the police line.”
Campaigners disputed allegations of disorder, stating: “Claims of disorder on the day were simply false. The only moment of violence was when Chris Nineham was brutally pulled to the ground…”
They also alleged external pressure on policing decisions, saying: “The logs of the Police Gold Commander Adam Slonecki reveal that enormous political pressure was placed on the police…”
Warning of wider implications, the statement added: “Today’s verdict raises huge concerns about any further powers granted to the police through the Crime and Policing Bill… The unprecedented charging and now conviction… is designed to chill ongoing opposition… It will not succeed.”
Metropolitan Police statement
However, the Metropolitan Police said the convictions reinforce the need to uphold lawful protest conditions.
Met Police spokesperson said: “Parliament has determined that the police should have the power to impose conditions on assemblies and marches to ensure the right to protest can be balanced against the rights of others to go about their lives without serious disruption.
“Where people who ought to have known about conditions in place choose to breach them, or choose to incite others to do so, it is important that there are consequences.
“On this occasion it was the two lead protest organisers – Ben Jamal and Chris Nineham – who led a march to the top of Whitehall and around Trafalgar Square in the hope of reaching the BBC. They knew, because they had been in touch with officers all week and because the conditions had been clearly communicated in advance, that their protest was not permitted to leave Whitehall.
“In doing so they both breached the conditions, with Ben Jamal also taking to the stage and inciting others to do the same…
“We hope the verdicts encourage all protest organisers, no matter their cause, to understand the importance of cooperating with officers and complying with the lawful decisions they make.
“Where this doesn’t happen, we will use the powers available to us to take the appropriate legal action.”
