IN FULL: Judges’ warning not to “cross the line” with political speech as pro-Palestine activist cleared of terrorism charges

Can I please ask that when I announce the verdicts of the Jurats, that they are met with complete silence. The Jurats have a difficult job to do and it is not appropriate for their decisions to be greeted with applause or hostility.

The Jurats have applied the law that I have told them to the facts as they have found them to reach their decisions and they have done that without fear or favour and that needs to be respected.

In this case, the Court has decided to give some limited reasons for the Court’s decisions.

Mrs Strecker is not only a woman of good character in terms of someone who has no convictions, she is someone the Court is satisfied is of positive good character in that she has done a great deal of good for young people and others during her life. 

That finding is based on powerful testimony to her work given by impressive character witnesses from whom we have heard. We accept that she is an aspiring pacifist. That means she rejects violence and wishes that there was no more in the world, while understanding that that might not be possible to achieve in reality.

We are persuaded by the evidence that those beliefs govern the way she conducts her life. She is moved by the suffering caused by war and feels empathy for all those affected by it. 

She has been particularly moved by the suffering of those who live and have died in Gaza. She has been to Palestine; she has seen the suffering, not only of people old enough to fight but also of children who cannot defend themselves. She wants the fighting and the suffering to stop.

Unfortunately, her compassion and frustration at the continuing violence has led her to make unwise statements on social media, which are capable in the Court’s view of being construed as inviting support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

That of itself is not enough to make her guilty of these offences, in addition, the prosecution have to prove that she intended to invite support for Hamas and Hezbollah. That is particularly relevant in a case where we are satisfied that she has said extreme things on social media, which the Court accepts that she didn’t mean in a literal sense.

It needs to be understood by everyone that inviting support for proscribed organisations has a very broad meaning under Jersey Law and includes not only inviting active support, but also inviting intellectual support: that is to say, inviting agreement with and approval for the actions of a proscribed organisation.

This case has established that it is no defence to these charges to argue that the invitation to support is limited to the lawful activities of a proscribed organisation.

We wish to make clear that the Defendant and others who share her beliefs need to be very careful in what they say and need to be aware that if they express to others their personal support for some activities of proscribed organisations, they may well cross a line and commit this offence.

The consequences of being convicted of a terrorist offence, whatever the immediate sentence may be, are likely to be serious and could result in restrictions in accessing certain countries and loss of employment, particularly employment with children. People, and particularly in this case, people who care very much about the tragic events that are happening in parts of the Middle East, need to take particular care in what they say.

The prosecution and the Court has focused on what the Defendant has said in publicly accessible statements either on video or on social media.

It is the view of the Court that some of the messages on social media identified by the prosecution are capable of being interpreted as suggesting that the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah should be supported in so far as they seek to repel the occupation of Gaza.

Bearing in mind the wide definition of inviting support and the high regard that the Defendant is held in by some people, that is capable of being interpreted as inviting support for a proscribed organisation.

The Court has therefore moved on to consider whether the Defendant intended to invite support for Hamas and Hezbollah in the postings and videos identified by the prosecution.

The Court is satisfied that the Defendant abhors the acts of violence committed by both of those groups and is not a supporter of either Hamas or Hezbollah. The Court therefore has to ask itself whether it is satisfied that the Defendant was inviting support for organisations that she doesn’t herself support.

Further, the Court is satisfied that the Defendant’s empathy extends not just to Palestinians who have suffered during the war with Israel, but also to Israelis who have suffered death and injury from attacks on them and those who were taken hostage.

She has said that many times and the Court has no reason to doubt that she means it. She does believe that what happened on October 7th, for which she has expressed disapproval, should be seen within the context of the history of the state of Gaza and the way Palestinians have been treated historically. That is an expression of a personal belief and that belief is shared by other people.

Before I conclude with the verdicts, I want to say two things. First, the Court has relied extensively on the police interview. The interview, in our view, is a model as to how a police interview should be conducted.

The police treated Mrs Strecker with courtesy and consideration throughout their contact with her and they cannot be criticised for the actions that they took in investigating these allegations.

Further, I found after a submission of no case to answer had been made that there was a case to answer, so that there was evidence in my view from which the Jurats could conclude that the Defendant had committed both of these offences. It follows that the prosecution was properly brought.

Any comment to the contrary would be inappropriate and unjustified.

In the end, the Jurats were not satisfied so that they were sure that the Defendant had the necessary intent to be guilty of these offences and accordingly finds the Defendant not guilty of both charges.

The Court hopes that this case will serve as a clear warning not only to the Defendant but others who hold similar views not to cross the line. The consequences of conviction for terrorist offences cannot be overstated.

Follow Express for updates…