What Happened: Terrorism Charge, Dismissal, and Government Appeal
The Original Case
In November 2024, Irish‑language rap group Kneecap performed in London. A member, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh (stage name Mo Chara), was later charged under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at the gig, a banned organisation in the UK. Authorities also claimed he made supportive comments about proscribed groups. Kneecap denied supporting Hezbollah or Hamas, saying the footage was taken out of context and the flag was thrown on stage. (Wikipedia)
At Westminster Magistrates’ Court in summer 2025, the charge was thrown out because prosecutors had failed to obtain the necessary authorisations and also breached the six‑month statutory limit to bring such a charge. The judge ruled the proceedings “instituted unlawfully and are null.” (ITVX)
Appeal by Prosecutors
In January 2026, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) challenged that dismissal at the High Court in London, arguing the magistrate misapplied the law on when authorisations must be obtained — and that the charge can proceed. The appeal hearing concluded and judges reserved judgment, which will be published later (likely online). (ITVX)
Government Spending on the Appeal
Although exact figures have not been publicly itemised by the Crown Prosecution Service or Home Office, Kneecap has attacked the UK government for the cost of the appeal process — characterising it as a waste of taxpayers’ money, police time and court resources.
In statements and on social media, the group said the government’s decision to appeal:
- “Is a massive waste of taxpayers’ money…”
- “…endless news reports about Mo Chara … but we are NOT the story.”
- “…a waste of public time and public money.”
- And framed it as an attempt by the state to vilify political dissent. (ITVX)
Some reports have referenced the £1 million+ figure loosely in discussions of the combined costs of legal representation, CPS time, police involvement and High Court procedures — although no official government source has confirmed this precise sum.
What’s clear: Appeals in specialist legal areas like terrorism can be expensive due to:
- Senior barristers and counsel fees
- CPS and Home Office legal teams
- Judicial time in the High Court
- Preparation of complex legal arguments on statutory interpretation
All of that adds to public spending on prosecution, even where a previous trial was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Kneecap’s Response and Criticism
Political and Free‑Speech Arguments
Kneecap — known for overtly political lyrics (including pro‑Palestinian solidarity and anti‑establishment themes) — has used the appeal to frame the case as:
- Political policing rather than genuine counter‑terrorism
- An attempt to intimidate dissenting artists and activists
- Distracting from global and domestic issues they care about, such as the Gaza conflict
- A misuse of legal resources in prosecuting art and expression rather than clear criminal conduct (ITVX)
Their public posts have emphasised that much more serious events worldwide deserve attention than the UK government’s pursuit of their case — a message that resonates with their supporters. (euronews)
Supporters rallied outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London with Irish tricolours and Palestinian flags when the appeal was heard, illustrating a politically charged backdrop to the legal dispute. (Reddit)
Legal Context & Commentary
Procedural Grounds Matter
The magistrate’s original dismissal was strictly procedural — based on statutory requirements for timing and authorisation — not on the merits of the underlying factual allegations. This is why the CPS believes there’s an important legal question to be clarified about when authorisation is required. (ITVX)
Criticism of Government Motives
Kneecap and some commentators argue the appeal reflects:
- Overreach in the use of anti‑terror laws against artistic expression
- Potential political influence in deciding who gets prosecuted
- Broader trends in prosecuting controversial speech under terrorism provisions
Some political voices in Ireland and elsewhere warn that terrorism laws can be overly broad and risk criminalising legitimate protest or dissent when interpreted too expansively. (Oireachtas Data)
Key Facts Recap
| Issue | Detail |
|---|---|
| Group | Kneecap (Irish‑language rap trio) |
| Member charged | Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh (Mo Chara) |
| Allegation | Displaying Hezbollah flag + alleged pro‑terror messaging |
| Court ruling (Sept 2025) | Terror charge dismissed due to procedural error |
| Appeal status (Jan 2026) | Hearing complete; judgment reserved |
| Government criticism | Kneecap calls appeal a waste of public money and political persecution |
| Cost controversy | Figures such as £1 million+ cited in political commentary (not officially confirmed) |
| Public reaction | Supporters rallying, debates over free speech vs terrorism law |
Perspectives & Comments
Kneecap (band’s view):
- Argue the appeal and prosecution are politically motivated
- Reject association with terrorist organisations
- See the legal battle as part of wider censorship and state overreach
- Criticise government for prioritising this case over other public issues (ITVX)
Crown Prosecution Service / Government view:
- CPS states legal clarity is needed on application of terrorism statute
- Appeal is about correct interpretation of law, not politics
- Neither CPS nor government has publicly confirmed total costs of the appeal
Legal analysts:
- Note that the case raises important questions about how terrorism laws interact with freedom of expression and artistic speech
- Also emphasise that procedural strictures (timing and authorisation) are crucial in terrorism prosecutions.
Why This Matters
Legal precedent: The High Court’s eventual ruling will shape how terrorism charges must be filed and authorised in future — especially when politically sensitive speech or symbols are involved.
Public spending debate: Even if exact figures are not public, the contention over government spending on prosecutions highlights tensions between law enforcement priorities and public perceptions of reasonableness.
Free speech implications: Critics argue that using terrorism provisions against performers or activists sets a concerning precedent for artistic and political expression.
.
Here’s a detailed, case‑study–style look at how Irish‑language rap group Kneecap has criticised the UK government over public spending on the appeal of a terrorism case, with key background, developments, and comments from the band and others:
Case Background — Mo Chara’s Terrorism Charge & Dismissal
What happened:
In May 2025, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh (stage name Mo Chara), a member of Belfast rap group Kneecap, was charged under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at a London gig in November 2024 — an organisation proscribed in the UK. The band consistently denied support for Hezbollah or Hamas and said the footage was misleading. (Wikipedia)
Court outcome:
On 26 September 2025, a UK magistrate ruled the charge “unlawful and null” on procedural grounds because prosecutors failed to obtain the required approvals in time under statutory limits. (ITVX)
Government Appeal & High Court Hearing
After the dismissal, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) — representing the UK government — appealed the ruling at the High Court in London, arguing that consent was in place before Mo Chara’s first court appearance and that the magistrate misinterpreted the law. (ITVX)
The appeal hearing concluded on 14 January 2026, but the judges reserved judgment, meaning the decision will be published later rather than handed down in open court. (The Irish News)
Kneecap’s Criticism Over Public Spending
Accusations of Wasteful Spending
Ahead of the appeal judgment, Kneecap publicly attacked the UK government, claiming:
- The appeal is a “massive waste of taxpayers’ money” — citing over £1 million spent on pursuing the case through courts.
- Public resources (taxpayer money, police time, and court time) should be spent on everyday problems rather than what they see as political prosecutions.
- The government is focused on them instead of larger issues like the Gaza conflict, which they described as real suffering. (Blunt Magazine)
The band’s full statement blasted the appeal as a “carnival of distraction” and accused politicians of trying to silence those who show solidarity with Palestinians. (Blunt Magazine)
Public Framing
Kneecap also framed the spending as part of a broader political witch‑hunt and expressed solidarity with other political causes in their comments, referring to wider injustices they feel are ignored in public discourse. (Blunt Magazine)
Case Studies & Public Reaction
Supporter Rally at High Court
On 14 January 2026, ahead of the appeal hearing, supporters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London carrying Irish tricolours and placards. This illustrated the intense emotion and political framing surrounding the case, beyond purely legal issues. (Reddit)
Media & Public Debate
The case has drawn commentary across media, with some critics arguing the use of terrorism laws against artists could chill free expression and protest, while others stress the need for clear legal processes when terrorism‑related offences are charged. This broader debate feeds into the narrative Kneecap promotes in their criticism. (NME)
Expert & Contextual Commentary
Legal Complexity
- The technical dismissal at first instance, and the ongoing appeal, highlight how procedural requirements (such as timing and authorisation under terrorism statutes) are critical in sensitive prosecutions. Lawyers cited interpretative issues about when consent must be given for charging. (ITVX)
- Whether the appeal succeeds will shape how future terrorism charges are brought, especially where politically charged speech or protest symbols are involved.
Political & Cultural Dimensions
Kneecap’s criticism taps into wider tensions over:
- Government priorities and use of public funds
- Perception of political policing vs legitimate law enforcement
- How anti‑terror laws intersect with artistic expression and political protest — especially given Kneecap’s outspoken Free Palestine stance. (NME)
Summary: Spending Controversy & Criticism
| Issue | Status |
|---|---|
| Charge | Mo Chara was charged under Terrorism Act (Nov 2024 incident) (Wikipedia) |
| Dismissal | Case thrown out Sept 2025 due to procedural error (ITVX) |
| Appeal | CPS appealed; High Court reserved judgment Jan 2026 (The Irish News) |
| Band’s criticism | Claims £1m+ wasted on appeal, distraction from real issues (Blunt Magazine) |
| Public reaction | Supporters rallied; wider debate on free speech and terrorism laws (Reddit) |
Key Quotes & Commentary
Kneecap’s statement:
“This is a massive waste of taxpayers’ money, of police time, of court time… We will fight you in your court again. We will win again.” (ITVX)
Band protest message:
“Once again today was a distraction from the complicity of the British government in genocide… That is the ONLY thing worth talking about.” (Blunt Magazine)
Why This Matters
Legal precedent:
The appeal judgment will clarify procedural obligations in terrorism prosecutions — potentially affecting how future cases are pursued.
Public trust & governance:
The criticism reflects broader public concern about whether public funds are being used proportionately in politically sensitive cases, especially where accusations involve cultural figures and free expression.
Cultural debate:
The case illustrates the intersection of law, politics and protest — and how governments manage allegations involving speech and symbolism linked to global conflicts.