'This is not a ruling on innocence or guilt': Why Hezbollah terror case against Kneecap rapper Mo Chara collapsed in court - explained

To begin with, Kneecap’s display of the message ‘F**K ISRAEL’ at Coachella music festival in the USA in April led to a renewed focus on the group, particularly its pro-Palestinian activism.

As part of a general trawl through their past comments, footage was unearthed from November 2024 showing Mo Chara on stage draped in the yellow flag of Hezbollah roaring: “tiocfaidh ar la, up Hamas, up Hezbollah”.

(At around the same time, other footage emerged of the group from 2023 in which one member told the audience: "We still have old men in London making decisions that affect my life in Ireland – and even worse, they're f***ing Tories. The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.” This 2023 incident was considered for criminal charges too, but in the end none were brought.)

Mo Chara was charged under his real name Liam O’Hanna (or Liam Og O hAnnaidh in Irish) with the following: that “on 21 November 2024, in a public place, namely the O2 Forum, Kentish Town, London, [he] displayed an article, namely a flag, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a supporter of a proscribed organisation, namely Hizballah, contrary to section 13(1)(b) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000”.

The Metropolitan Police became aware of the video footage which formed the basis of the charge on April 22.

A “notice of charge” was then issued by the Met police by post on May 21, requiring him to appear in court on June 18.

Mr O’Hanna’s solicitor Darragh Mackin of Pheonix Law had two arguments:

Firstly, he argued that the proceedings against Mr O’Hanna could only be “instituted” with “the consent of Director of Public Prosecutions (who, in turn, must have the permission of the Attorney General to do so)” and that under section 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, this must happen within six months of the alleged offence being committed.

However, “the relevant consent was neither sought nor granted until May 22, 2025” – one day outside the statutory time limit.

Secondly, Mr Mackin argued that “the Metropolitan Police was not authorised to make a charging decision in respect of section 13 Terrorism Act 2000”, and such a decision had to be made by the CPS.

In his judgement issued today, senior district judge Goldspring, the Chief Magistrate for England and Wales said: “This ruling is not about the defendant’s innocence or guilt rather only whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the case...

"It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the court, at this stage, to engage with the merits of the underlying allegation, or to determine whether the offence is in fact made out from the evidence.

"Nothing in this ruling should be read or interpreted as expressing any view, endorsement, or rejection of the allegations themselves.”

The judge noted that whilst the postal “notice of charge” was issued by police on May 21, an e-mail to Mr Mackin from the CPS the following day listed the charge date as May 22.

The judge ruled that, when it came to the first issue about the six-month time limit, “the statutory framework is clear” – and that the defence’s submissions “accurately reflect” it, whilst the prosecution’s arguments to the contrary “defy logic”.

He rejected Mr Mackin’s second argument, though by that stage this was “redundant” anyway.

The CPS have the ability to appeal.

It said in a statement: “We are reviewing the decision of the court carefully.”