{ "generated": "2026-10-15T18:35:42.522Z", "license": { "name": "CC BY 4.0", "url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "applies_to": "Our own text and data in /data. Linked sources keep their own licences." }, "about": "Legal nuances: what the rule says, the point most people miss, and the dated history behind it. Each claim links to primary sources.", "nuances": [ { "id": "jury-conscience", "order": 1, "featured": true, "title": "Jury conscience", "label": "Bushell's Case · 1670 → Webster · 2026", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "tags": [ "juries", "courts", "protest" ], "summary": "Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, and an acquittal stands. But in 2026 the Court of Appeal said the oath to try a case on the evidence leaves no *right* to do the opposite.", "rule": "Since Bushell's Case in 1670, jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return. A judge can never direct a jury to convict, and a not-guilty verdict cannot be overturned.", "nuance": [ "The power to acquit against the evidence exists because no one can review or punish the verdict. That is not the same as a right to do it. Jurors swear to return a true verdict according to the evidence, and judges do not tell them about the power.", "Since 2015, section 20C of the Juries Act 1974 makes it an offence for a juror to engage in conduct from which it may reasonably be concluded that they intend to try the case otherwise than on the evidence. The Court of Appeal has said the offence relates to how a juror intends to try the case, not to the delivery of the verdict.", "In 2024 the High Court refused to let the Solicitor General pursue Trudi Warner for contempt over a placard telling jurors they could acquit according to conscience. In 2026 the Court of Appeal said that decision was not a sound guide on section 20C, which it had not considered. Telling jurors about jury conscience outside a courtroom is therefore legally contested ground." ], "why_it_matters": "Jury conscience is the oldest safeguard against unjust prosecutions in English law. Where informing jurors ends and unlawfully influencing them begins is now being decided case by case.", "history": [ { "date": "1670", "date_label": "1670", "text": "Bushell's Case: jurors fined for acquitting William Penn and William Mead are freed on habeas corpus, establishing that juries may give their verdict according to their convictions.", "sources": [ { "id": "warner-2024", "title": "HM Solicitor General v Warner [2024] EWHC 918 (KB)", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/918", "type": "judgment" } ] }, { "date": "2015", "date_label": "2015", "text": "The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 inserts section 20C into the Juries Act 1974.", "sources": [ { "id": "juries-act-1974-s20c", "title": "Juries Act 1974, section 20C — Offence: jurors engaging in other prohibited conduct", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/20C", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2024-03", "date_label": "FEB–MAR 2024", "text": "At Inner London Crown Court, the judge tells a jury that posters and placards about jury conscience misstate the law. The five defendants are convicted of criminal damage.", "sources": [ { "id": "webster-v-king-2026", "title": "Webster & Ors v The King [2026] EWCA Crim 9", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/9", "type": "judgment" } ] }, { "date": "2024-04-22", "date_label": "APR 2024", "text": "The High Court refuses the Solicitor General permission to bring contempt proceedings against Trudi Warner.", "sources": [ { "id": "warner-2024", "title": "HM Solicitor General v Warner [2024] EWHC 918 (KB)", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/918", "type": "judgment" } ] }, { "date": "2026-01-20", "date_label": "JAN 2026", "text": "The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeals. It holds the judge's direction on section 20C was not wrong in law and says Warner is not a sound guide on the effect of section 20C.", "sources": [ { "id": "webster-v-king-2026", "title": "Webster & Ors v The King [2026] EWCA Crim 9", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/9", "type": "judgment" } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "warner-2024", "title": "HM Solicitor General v Warner [2024] EWHC 918 (KB)", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2024/918", "type": "judgment" }, { "id": "juries-act-1974-s20c", "title": "Juries Act 1974, section 20C — Offence: jurors engaging in other prohibited conduct", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/20C", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "webster-v-king-2026", "title": "Webster & Ors v The King [2026] EWCA Crim 9", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2026/9", "type": "judgment" } ], "related": { "timeline": [ "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#trudi-warner", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#jury-conscience-court-of-appeal-2026", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#david-nixon-contempt-2023" ] }, "checked": "2026-10-14", "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/nuances/jury-conscience/" }, { "id": "terrorism-definition", "order": 2, "featured": true, "title": "The loaded gun", "label": "Terrorism Act 2000 · s.1", "jurisdiction": "United Kingdom", "tags": [ "terrorism", "protest", "definitions" ], "summary": "\"Terrorism\" includes serious damage to property done to influence the government for a political cause. No injury required.", "rule": "Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as the use or threat of action that involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, danger to life, a serious risk to public health or safety, or serious interference with an electronic system. The action must be designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation, or to intimidate the public. It must also be done to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.", "nuance": [ "No one has to be hurt. Serious damage to property, done to influence the government for a political cause, meets the definition on its own.", "Where firearms or explosives are involved, the 'designed to influence the government' test does not apply at all.", "This wording has been in force since 2000. What has changed is how it is used: in 2025 the government relied on serious damage to property when it proscribed a direct-action protest group, and in 2026 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision." ], "why_it_matters": "The breadth of the definition decides which protest tactics can be treated as terrorism. That in turn opens the way to proscription, terrorism powers of arrest, and the support offences that follow.", "history": [ { "date": "2000", "date_label": "2000", "text": "The Terrorism Act 2000 enacts the definition, including serious damage to property.", "sources": [ { "id": "tact-2000-s1", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 1 — Terrorism: interpretation", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2025-07-05", "date_label": "JUL 2025", "text": "A proscription order comes into force. The government's published reasons cite attacks involving serious damage to property.", "sources": [ { "id": "uksi-2025-803", "title": "The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "home-office-proscribed-list", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2", "type": "official" } ] }, { "date": "2026-06-15", "date_label": "JUN 2026", "text": "The Court of Appeal upholds the proscription.", "sources": [ { "id": "sshd-v-ammori-2026-appeal", "title": "Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (Ammori) [2026] EWCA Civ 721", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721", "type": "judgment" } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "tact-2000-s1", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 1 — Terrorism: interpretation", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "home-office-proscribed-list", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2", "type": "official" }, { "id": "sshd-v-ammori-2026-appeal", "title": "Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (Ammori) [2026] EWCA Civ 721", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721", "type": "judgment" } ], "related": { "timeline": [ "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#how-it-works", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#proscription", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#proscription-reinstated-2026" ] }, "checked": "2026-10-14", "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/nuances/terrorism-definition/" }, { "id": "proscription-support", "order": 3, "featured": true, "title": "Proscription", "label": "Terrorism Act 2000 · ss.11–13", "jurisdiction": "United Kingdom", "tags": [ "terrorism", "proscription", "speech", "protest" ], "summary": "Once a group is banned, membership, inviting support, or even displaying a symbol of support becomes a criminal offence.", "rule": "Once an organisation is proscribed, it is an offence to belong or profess to belong to it (section 11), to invite support for it (section 12(1)), or to express an opinion or belief supportive of it while reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support it (section 12(1A)). It is also an offence to wear or display an article, or publish an image of one, in circumstances that arouse reasonable suspicion of membership or support (section 13).", "nuance": [ "The offences are about support for the organisation. Reporting that something happened, quoting words as evidence of an event, or criticising the law that bans a group is not, by itself, an opinion supportive of that group. Where the line falls in a particular case is for a court.", "The test in section 12(1A) is recklessness, not intent. A person can commit the offence without meaning to encourage anyone, if they are reckless as to whether their audience will be encouraged.", "Both section 12(1A) and the image offence in section 13(1A) were added in 2019. Before then, expressing a supportive opinion was an offence only if it invited support.", "The offences apply only while an organisation is proscribed. Check the current list on GOV.UK, not a secondary source." ], "why_it_matters": "Proscription turns ordinary acts of expression, such as a sign, a T-shirt or a post, into potential terrorism offences. It applies to everyone, not just members.", "history": [ { "date": "2000", "date_label": "2000", "text": "The Terrorism Act 2000 creates the membership, support and uniform offences.", "sources": [ { "id": "tact-2000-s11", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 11 — Membership", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/11", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "tact-2000-s12", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 12 — Support", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "tact-2000-s13", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 13 — Uniform and publication of images", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/13", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2019", "date_label": "2019", "text": "The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 adds the reckless-expression offence and the image-publication offence.", "sources": [ { "id": "ctbsa-2019-s1", "title": "Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, section 1 — Expressions of support for a proscribed organisation", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/1", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "ctbsa-2019-s2", "title": "Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, section 2 — Publication of images and seizure of articles", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/2", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2025-07-05", "date_label": "JUL 2025", "text": "Palestine Action, Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement are added to the proscribed list.", "sources": [ { "id": "uksi-2025-803", "title": "The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2026-02-13", "date_label": "FEB 2026", "text": "The High Court proposes to quash the Palestine Action proscription.", "sources": [ { "id": "ammori-v-sshd-2026-divisional", "title": "R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin)", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/292", "type": "judgment" } ] }, { "date": "2026-06-15", "date_label": "JUN 2026", "text": "The Court of Appeal allows the Home Secretary's appeal; the proscription stands.", "sources": [ { "id": "sshd-v-ammori-2026-appeal", "title": "Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (Ammori) [2026] EWCA Civ 721", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721", "type": "judgment" } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "tact-2000-s11", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 11 — Membership", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/11", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "tact-2000-s12", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 12 — Support", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "tact-2000-s13", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 13 — Uniform and publication of images", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/13", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "home-office-proscribed-list", "title": "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2", "type": "official" } ], "related": { "timeline": [ "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#proscription", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#sign-holder-arrests", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#proscription-reinstated-2026" ] }, "checked": "2026-10-14", "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/nuances/proscription-support/" }, { "id": "lawful-excuse", "order": 4, "featured": true, "title": "Lawful excuse", "label": "DPP v Ziegler · 2021", "jurisdiction": "England and Wales", "tags": [ "protest", "human-rights", "proportionality" ], "summary": "The Supreme Court held that blocking a road in protest can be lawful if prosecution would be disproportionate. Within eighteen months, the courts confined it.", "rule": "It is an offence to wilfully obstruct a highway \"without lawful authority or excuse\" (Highways Act 1980, section 137). In *DPP v Ziegler* (2021) the Supreme Court held that when protest rights under Articles 10 and 11 are engaged, whether there was a lawful excuse can turn on whether a conviction would be proportionate. It restored the acquittals of protesters who had blocked a road.", "nuance": [ "*Ziegler* was widely read as making proportionality a defence to any protest offence. The Supreme Court later said that reading was mistaken.", "In *DPP v Cuciurean* (March 2022) the Divisional Court held that a conviction for aggravated trespass is proportionate in itself, with no separate assessment needed.", "In the Colston statue reference (September 2022) the Court of Appeal held that violent protest, or protest causing significant damage to property, falls outside Convention protection altogether. Proportionality is then not a question for the jury.", "*Ziegler* still matters where an offence includes a lawful-excuse element and the protest is peaceful, as with obstructing a highway." ], "why_it_matters": "Whether proportionality is a live question decides whether a jury or magistrate weighs the protester's rights at all.", "history": [ { "date": "2021-06-25", "date_label": "JUN 2021", "text": "*DPP v Ziegler*: the Supreme Court restores the protesters' acquittals.", "sources": [ { "id": "ziegler-2021", "title": "DPP v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2021/23", "type": "judgment" }, { "id": "highways-act-1980-s137", "title": "Highways Act 1980, section 137 — Penalty for wilful obstruction", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2022-03-30", "date_label": "MAR 2022", "text": "*DPP v Cuciurean*: no separate proportionality assessment for aggravated trespass.", "sources": [ { "id": "cuciurean-2022", "title": "DPP v Cuciurean [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin)", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2022/736", "type": "judgment" } ] }, { "date": "2022-09-28", "date_label": "SEP 2022", "text": "Colston statue reference: violent conduct or significant damage falls outside Convention protection.", "sources": [ { "id": "ag-ref-1-2022-colston", "title": "Attorney General's Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1259", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2022/1259", "type": "judgment" } ] }, { "date": "2022-12-07", "date_label": "DEC 2022", "text": "Northern Ireland safe access zones reference: the Supreme Court says the wide reading of *Ziegler* was mistaken.", "sources": [ { "id": "ni-safe-access-zones-2022", "title": "Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland — Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill [2022] UKSC 32", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2022/32", "type": "judgment" } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "ziegler-2021", "title": "DPP v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2021/23", "type": "judgment" }, { "id": "cuciurean-2022", "title": "DPP v Cuciurean [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin)", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2022/736", "type": "judgment" }, { "id": "ag-ref-1-2022-colston", "title": "Attorney General's Reference on a Point of Law No 1 of 2022 [2022] EWCA Crim 1259", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2022/1259", "type": "judgment" }, { "id": "ni-safe-access-zones-2022", "title": "Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland — Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill [2022] UKSC 32", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2022/32", "type": "judgment" } ], "related": { "timeline": [] }, "checked": "2026-10-14", "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/nuances/lawful-excuse/" }, { "id": "no-punishment-without-law", "order": 5, "featured": false, "title": "No punishment without law", "label": "ECHR Article 7 · Human Rights Act 1998", "jurisdiction": "United Kingdom", "tags": [ "human-rights", "retrospectivity", "terrorism" ], "summary": "No one can be convicted for an act that was not a crime when they did it. But an old law can be used in a new way.", "rule": "Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, part of UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, says no one may be held guilty of a criminal offence for an act that was not an offence when it was committed. It also forbids a heavier penalty than the one that applied at the time.", "nuance": [ "Parliament cannot create a crime after the fact. Proscription offences therefore apply only from the moment an organisation is proscribed: the 2025 order came into force on 5 July 2025, and the support offences reach expressions made from then on.", "Article 7 does not stop an existing, broadly drawn law from being applied to conduct it was rarely used against before. That is the point the UK timeline makes about section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000: the definition has been in force since 2000, so using it against protest creates no new crime. What changes is how it is used." ], "why_it_matters": "Knowing when a law began to apply, and to what, separates conduct that was lawful at the time from conduct that was not.", "history": [ { "date": "1998", "date_label": "1998", "text": "The Human Rights Act 1998 gives effect to Article 7 in UK law.", "sources": [ { "id": "hra-1998-sch1", "title": "Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1 — The Articles (including Article 7)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1", "type": "legislation" } ] }, { "date": "2025-07-05", "date_label": "JUL 2025", "text": "The proscription order comes into force on 5 July 2025.", "sources": [ { "id": "uksi-2025-803", "title": "The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803", "type": "legislation" } ] } ], "sources": [ { "id": "hra-1998-sch1", "title": "Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1 — The Articles (including Article 7)", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "uksi-2025-803", "title": "The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/803", "type": "legislation" }, { "id": "tact-2000-s1", "title": "Terrorism Act 2000, section 1 — Terrorism: interpretation", "url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1", "type": "legislation" } ], "related": { "timeline": [ "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#how-it-works", "https://independenttribunal.org/uk-timeline/#proscription" ] }, "checked": "2026-10-14", "url": "https://independenttribunal.org/nuances/no-punishment-without-law/" } ] }