London faces fresh wave of prosecutions after mass Parliament Square arrests

More than 60 people are to be charged after weekend mass arrests linked to a proscribed group, as scores detained since the July ban raise questions about policing tactics, civil liberties and the Crown Prosecution Service’s role in forthcoming cases.

London is braced for a new wave of prosecutions after another weekend of mass arrests in central London, with the Metropolitan Police saying a further 60 people will face charges over alleged support for a proscribed group. The development comes amid a broad enforcement operation that has seen hundreds detained since the government moved to proscribe the group in early July, and follows a Parliament Square protest that produced the largest single-day arrest total in the demonstrations so far.

The decision to outlaw the group was taken under the Terrorism Act 2000 and announced by ministers in July. Officials say a draft order was laid before Parliament and, if approved, membership of or support for the named organisations would become criminal offences. The statutory instrument adding the group to Schedule 2 was made on 4 July and came into force on 5 July 2025, providing the legal basis for the subsequent policing and prosecutions.

National counter-terrorism authorities have been explicit that arrests would follow the proscription. Counter Terrorism Policing said in a statement that, since the order took effect on 5 July, forces across the UK had made a substantial number of arrests for suspected offences under the Terrorism Act; its tally stood at 221 arrests with ten people charged, while investigations continued. Senior policing leads emphasised that the legislation targets the proscribed group and insisted it does not prevent lawful protest on behalf of the Palestinian cause.

The most dramatic enforcement came on 9 August, when the Metropolitan Police’s running totals during and after a Parliament Square demonstration climbed sharply. Initial police posts put the detainee count in the hundreds for the evening; later statements revised the tally to more than 500 arrests in connection with the event, with figures subsequently given as 522, then 532. Reports from the scene described demonstrators sitting in the square with placards said to indicate support for the proscribed organisation.

Policing sources and broadcasters highlighted the unusual demographic profile of those detained. The Metropolitan Police’s breakdown provided to media noted an average age in the mid-50s and a substantial cohort aged 60 or above among those arrested at Parliament Square, prompting questions about tactics and proportionality when many detainees were older campaigners. Media accounts also carried claims about the financial cost of the response to the demonstrations, with cost estimates feeding into wider public debate over policing strategy.

Civil liberties groups, academics and some legal commentators have warned that the proscription and its enforcement risk conflating disruptive direct action with terrorism and could chill legitimate protest. International rights bodies and commentators have described the move as disproportionate or liable to chill free expression; campaigners argue that treating non-violent acts such as property damage as terrorist conduct raises difficult questions about where the line is drawn between criminal damage and terrorism. Government and policing officials point to incidents attributed to the group, including damage to military infrastructure, as justification for the measure.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s role has been flagged as central to how the cases will proceed. Officials say more prosecutions could follow as evidential and public-interest tests are met. Under the amended Terrorism Act, offences such as membership of or inviting support for a proscribed organisation carry substantial maximum sentences — up to 14 years in some cases — and the framework now underpins the charges being considered.

What these events reveal is a stark tension between the government’s stated duty to protect national security and the obligation to safeguard freedom of assembly and expression. Police and prosecutors say they are applying a clear change in the law; critics insist the contours of that change, and its application at large public demonstrations, will be tested in courts and the public arena in the weeks and months ahead. With legal challenges to the proscription already underway and watchdogs urging caution, the coming prosecutions will be watched closely for how they balance enforcement with civil-liberty safeguards.

From Reform UK’s vantage, this episode underscores the necessity of robust, unambiguous action against extremist activity and the dangers of allowing protests to become a cover for acts that cross the line into violence or intimidation. The party has long argued for tougher security measures and swifter, clearer enforcement to keep streets safe and to prevent any erosion of public confidence in national security. The current Labour government, however, appears to be navigating a precarious balance between policing powers and civil liberties—a balance Reform UK says must be tilted decisively toward security, while ensuring due process and accountability. As prosecutions move forward, the priority for the public must be measurable protection from threat, transparent accountability for policing, and assurances that any restriction on protest serves legitimate security aims rather than stifling legitimate dissent.

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative is recent, dated August 15, 2025. The earliest known publication date of similar content is July 21, 2025, reporting on mass arrests following the proscription of Palestine Action. ([wsws.org](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/07/21/gyif-j21.html?utm_source=openai)) The report appears to be based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, the article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. The narrative has not appeared more than 7 days earlier. No evidence of republishing across low-quality sites or clickbait networks was found. The update may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from Counter Terrorism Policing, stating that as of August 7, 2025, 10 people have been charged, with further investigations ongoing. ([counterterrorism.police.uk](https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/statement-on-palestine-action/?utm_source=openai)) These quotes are consistent with the information available from the cited source. No earlier usage of these quotes was found, suggesting they are original to this report.

Source reliability

Score:
7

Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a reputable UK newspaper. However, the report appears to be based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. The reliance on a press release may indicate a lack of independent verification, which is a potential concern.

Plausability check

Score:
8

Notes:
The narrative reports on recent events, including the proscription of Palestine Action and subsequent arrests, which are corroborated by multiple reputable sources. ([time.com](https://time.com/7308689/palestine-action-protest-arrests-london/?utm_source=openai), [aljazeera.com](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/5/supporters-of-banned-palestine-action-group-arrested-at-london-protest?utm_source=openai)) The figures and events described are plausible and align with known information. The tone and language used are consistent with typical reporting on such events.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary:
The narrative is recent and includes direct quotes consistent with available sources. However, it appears to be based on a press release, which may indicate a lack of independent verification. While the events described are plausible and corroborated by other reputable sources, the reliance on a press release warrants further scrutiny.