Palestine Action Arrests at Liverpool Labour Conference 2026

Key Points

• Over 50 individuals were taken into custody outside the Labour Party conference held in Liverpool during a protest in support of Palestine Action, says the Merseyside Police.
• The protest was organized by Defend Our Juries and saw over 250 people gathering outside the venue of the conference.
• Individuals held placards bearing the messages “I support Palestine Action” and “I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action”.
• According to the police, they arrested individuals suspected of displaying or carrying materials which supported a proscribed group.
• The arrest was conducted using provisions of the Terrorism Act after the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization in July 2025.
• Amnesty International said the arrest was an assault on the right to freedom of expression.
• Among those who were said to be detained was Margaret Owen, a 94-year-old human rights barrister.
• Defend Our Juries later announced that over 150 individuals had been arrested following the protest which lasted for approximately 16 hours.
• The Government defends the proscription while the legal challenge against it by Palestine Action will be considered by the Supreme Court.

Liverpool (Liverpool standard) September 28, 2026 – More than 50 people were arrested outside the Labour Party conference after demonstrators displayed placards supporting Palestine Action, a group proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom.

The arrests took place during a demonstration organised by Defend Our Juries near the Wheel of Liverpool, close to the conference venue. Merseyside Police said protesters were detained on suspicion of wearing or carrying an article supporting a proscribed organisation.

According to BBC News, more than 250 people had gathered outside the conference centre earlier in the day. Many held handmade signs bearing the words “I support Palestine Action”. Police officers later moved into the protest and began arresting demonstrators after warning that displaying support for the group could constitute a criminal offence.

Merseyside Police said its officers respected the right to protest lawfully, but were also responsible for maintaining public safety and order. The force said it had made detailed and co-ordinated preparations before the event so that the law could be applied consistently, fairly and proportionately.

A police statement reported by ITV News said:

“We can confirm that more than 50 people have been arrested so far today at a Defend Our Juries protest near to The Wheel of Liverpool.”

The force added that some people at the demonstration had displayed material supporting Palestine Action. Officers were making arrests on suspicion of “wearing/carrying an article supporting a proscribed organisation”.

Why were demonstrators arrested?

The arrests were linked to the Government’s proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act. Under the law, support for a proscribed organisation can result in criminal proceedings, including where individuals display or carry material that indicates support for the organisation.

Reports from BBC News and ITV News said officers warned demonstrators that continuing to hold the placards could lead to arrest. In one incident described by ITV News, police approached a protester holding a sign supporting Palestine Action and asked whether he intended to continue displaying it. He was later led away by officers.

ITV News also reported that an elderly man sitting beneath a tree was arrested during the demonstration. The arrests continued for several hours, with police officers moving through groups of protesters near the conference venue.

The protest signs referred both to Palestine Action and to the wider conflict in Gaza. Some placards carried the message: “I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action.” Demonstrators also chanted “Free, free Palestine” as people were taken away, according to ITV News.

The organisers argued that the people involved were peacefully expressing political views rather than encouraging terrorism or violence. They said the arrests demonstrated the consequences of the Government’s decision to apply terrorism legislation to a group whose supporters were using direct action against companies linked to Israel.

What did Defend Our Juries say?

Defend Our Juries organised the Liverpool protest and strongly criticised the arrests. In a statement reported by ITV News, the group said it had hoped Prime Minister Andy Burnham would reverse the ban on Palestine Action because of what it described as public opposition to the proscription and the growing resources required to enforce it.

The organisation described the continuation of the ban as “illogical, unsustainable and immoral”. It also said people from professions including teaching, healthcare and retirement communities were prepared to risk arrest to protest against what they view as British involvement in alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Defend Our Juries called on the Prime Minister to commit to ending the prosecution and imprisonment of people under terrorism legislation for holding placards opposing the war.

The group later said that the number of arrests had risen above 150 after the protest continued for approximately 16 hours. LBC, reporting statements from the organisers, said arrests continued from Sunday afternoon into the early hours of Monday.

The figure of more than 150 arrests came from Defend Our Juries and was higher than the figure of more than 50 arrests given by Merseyside Police during the initial stage of the operation. The two figures therefore refer to different updates from different sources and should not be treated as identical official totals.

What did Amnesty International say?

Amnesty International criticised the arrests and questioned whether the response was compatible with freedom of expression and the right to protest.

Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, said protesting was one of the most effective ways for people to make political leaders listen. She accused successive governments of restricting the right to protest and described the arrests of grandparents, teenagers and other demonstrators as a “shameful attack on freedom of speech”.

Moscogiuri said the new Prime Minister had an opportunity to reform the law so communities could gather and campaign on issues they considered important.

Among those reported to have been arrested was Margaret Owen, a 94-year-old human rights barrister. Her detention became one of the most prominent details of the protest because campaigners said it illustrated the age range of people who had taken part.

The presence of older demonstrators also featured in accounts from the organisers, who said many pensioners remained in a police cordon while the arrests continued. Defend Our Juries later claimed that people were still being detained during the night.

How did the police respond?

Merseyside Police said it recognised the right of people to take part in lawful protest. However, the force said it had a duty to respond when individuals were suspected of displaying material supporting a proscribed organisation.

The police statement did not suggest that every person present at the protest had committed an offence. BBC News reported that the force emphasised that not everyone attending the demonstration was engaged in criminal conduct.

The police said officers were working to maintain public order and protect public safety. They also said preparations had been made in advance because of the legal and operational issues surrounding demonstrations connected with Palestine Action.

The force said the operation remained ongoing and that further information would be provided. The initial figure of more than 50 arrests was therefore subject to change.

What is the Government’s position?

The Government has maintained that the proscription of Palestine Action does not prevent lawful demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights or opposition to Israel’s military actions.

According to BBC News, the Home Office said the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was based on evidence relating to what it described as significant criminal damage against legitimate businesses. The Government has argued that the ban concerns the activities of Palestine Action itself rather than general support for Palestinians or criticism of Israel.

The Home Office also referred to court findings about the group’s conduct. It said the Court of Appeal had concluded that Palestine Action had engaged in acts of terrorism, celebrated those involved and promoted violence.

Campaigners reject that interpretation and argue that the group’s actions were politically motivated direct action against companies involved in the manufacture or supply of weapons linked to Israel.

The dispute has created a legal and political divide between the Government’s description of Palestine Action and the campaigners’ description of it. The Liverpool arrests brought that dispute into direct view outside the governing party’s annual conference.

Why is the ban facing a legal challenge?

The proscription of Palestine Action was introduced in July 2025 under the Terrorism Act. The organisation’s co-founder was later granted permission to challenge the ban, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the matter, according to BBC News and LBC.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said the Government will “robustly defend” the proscription.

The legal challenge is significant because the Supreme Court’s decision could affect how terrorism legislation is applied to politically motivated direct action. It could also clarify the distinction between serious criminal damage, political protest and conduct that meets the legal definition of terrorism.

Until the court reaches a decision, the existing proscription remains in force. That means displaying material interpreted as supporting Palestine Action can lead to police intervention and possible arrest, even where demonstrators say their protest is peaceful.

The precise legal outcome will depend on the court’s assessment of the evidence, the wording of the Terrorism Act and the Government’s justification for proscribing the organisation.

How did the protest affect the Labour conference?

The demonstration took place on the opening day of the Labour Party conference in Liverpool. Its location placed the issue of Palestine Action directly outside a major political event attended by ministers, Labour members and journalists.

The protest also raised questions about the Government’s approach to Gaza and its response to people who oppose British links with Israel. Campaigners used the conference to call on Labour leaders to change the policy inherited from the previous Government.

The protest was particularly significant because it occurred during the first Labour conference involving Andy Burnham as Prime Minister, according to reports from ITV News and Defend Our Juries.

The organisers said the Prime Minister should take action rather than only express concern about events in Gaza. Their criticism focused on what they considered a contradiction between support for political pressure over Gaza and the arrest of people who used protest to express that pressure.

The arrests therefore became part of a broader argument about whether the Government can support the right to protest while enforcing laws that restrict support for proscribed groups.

What statements were reported about the wider dispute?

The protest organisers said that people were being arrested for holding signs opposing genocide and supporting Palestine Action. They argued that the demonstrators were being treated as terrorists for expressing a political position.

Amnesty International focused on freedom of expression and the right to assemble. Its criticism centred on the age and peaceful conduct of some of those detained.

Merseyside Police focused on the legal status of Palestine Action and said officers were acting against suspected displays of support for a proscribed organisation.

The Home Office focused on the alleged criminal conduct that led to the proscription and said the ban did not prevent lawful pro-Palestinian protest.

These positions describe the same events from different perspectives. The police and Government statements concern the operation of existing law, while the organisers and Amnesty International question whether that law is proportionate and compatible with democratic rights.

Background: Why was Palestine Action proscribed?

Palestine Action is a direct-action group that has targeted companies it says are involved in the production or supply of weapons used by Israel. Its activities have included protests, occupations and property damage at sites connected by campaigners to the Israeli defence industry.

The Government proscribed the group as a terrorist organisation in July 2025. The Home Office said the decision followed evidence of serious criminal damage and other conduct that met the legal threshold for proscription.

The ban means membership of Palestine Action, inviting support for it, arranging meetings connected with it or displaying material that indicates support can create criminal liability under the Terrorism Act.

The proscription has been disputed in court. The High Court and Court of Appeal addressed whether Palestine Action’s conduct could justify the use of terrorism legislation, while the Supreme Court is now expected to consider the legal challenge to the ban.

The Government says general support for the Palestinian people remains lawful and that the proscription is directed at Palestine Action’s activities. Campaigners say the law is being used to criminalise peaceful political expression and protest.

Prediction: How could the arrests affect UK audiences?

The Liverpool arrests are likely to increase public attention on the legal limits of protest in the United Kingdom. For people planning demonstrations, the central practical issue will be whether signs, clothing or slogans could be interpreted as expressing support for Palestine Action.

The arrests may also influence future protests near political conferences, Parliament and other high-profile public events. Organisers are likely to seek legal advice, clarify protest materials and warn participants about the consequences of displaying symbols or messages linked to a proscribed organisation.

For Labour supporters and voters, the incident could create pressure on the Government to explain how it balances national security legislation with the right to protest. For Palestinian solidarity groups, the arrests may encourage further demonstrations but could also increase the risk of detention and criminal investigation.

The pending Supreme Court case will be the most important development to watch. If the court upholds the proscription, police are likely to retain broad authority to act against public displays interpreted as support for Palestine Action. If the court overturns or limits the ban, the ruling could affect existing prosecutions and reshape the legal position of direct-action groups.

Until that legal process is completed, the current law remains in effect. The Liverpool events show that people who attend protests supporting Palestine Action may face arrest even when they describe their conduct as peaceful and political.