Appeal over Kneecap rapper’s terror case begins at UK high court

Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was accused of displaying a flag in support of proscribed terror organisation Hezbollah at a 2024 gig in London

Kneecap’s Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, outside Woolwich Crown Court in September Picture: Aaron Chown/PA

The British Crown Prosecution Service’s bid to overturn the decision to throw out the terrorism case against rapper Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has begun at the high court in London.

The rapper, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was accused of displaying a flag in support of proscribed terror organisation Hezbollah at a gig at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, on November 21 2024.

But the case was thrown out in September last year, with chief magistrate Paul Goldspring ruling the proceedings were “instituted unlawfully”.

Judge Goldspring had agreed with Ó hAnnaidh’s lawyers that prosecutors needed to seek the permission of the Attorney General to charge the rapper before informing him on May 21 that he would be charged with a terror offence.

This permission was given the following day, which the court heard meant the charge fell outside the six-month timeframe in which criminal charges against a defendant can be brought.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is now appealing against the decision at the high court, with O hAnnaidh opposing the appeal.

Kneecap's JJ Ó Dochartaigh, whose stage name is DJ Próvaí, and manager Daniel Lambert are attending the hearing in London.

Paul Jarvis KC, for the CPS, said the Attorney General’s permission was in place before Ó hAnnaidh’s first court appearance on June 18, meaning the requirements were met.

The barrister said in written submissions that the requirement for the Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions’ agreement applies “when the defendant appears before the magistrates’ court to answer the charge he faces”.

Mr Jarvis continued: “That interpretation is consistent with the case law both before and after the introduction of that particular consent provision and applies irrespective of whether the offence is summary-only or indictable.” 

The barrister said if the chief magistrate’s ruling was correct, it would likely mean proceedings would be “instituted” when written charges are issued, rather than when a defendant appears at court to answer the charge.

Mr Jarvis said: “The appellant submits that that is an example of the tail wagging the dog.” 

The barrister later said that as the Attorney General’s permission had been given on May 22, “it follows that valid consent to the respondent’s prosecution was in place before the proceedings against the respondent were ‘instituted’ on 18 June 2025”.

However, Jude Bunting KC, for Ó hAnnaidh, said Judge Goldspring’s findings were “unassailably correct”.

He continued in written submissions: “The answer to this appeal is straightforward… The necessary permission and consent were not provided at the time the proceedings were ‘instituted’.

“As such, the chief magistrate was plainly correct to hold that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form within the six-month statutory time limit.” 

The barrister said no previous case supported the CPS argument that magistrates’ court proceedings are only “instituted” when a defendant appears in court.

Mr Bunting continued: “The appellant’s case is at odds with the principle that the law should be coherent: the Crown invites the court to interpret the relevant statutory scheme in a manner leading to absurd results, whereby criminal proceedings would be deemed to have been ‘instituted’ at multiple different points in the same set of proceedings.” 

The barrister later said written charges can lead to defendants pleading by post and never appearing in court in person.

He continued: “A lack of consent or permission at the time of charge could therefore lead to a defendant pleading guilty by post, and thereafter being summarily convicted of a charge issued by the police, to which the Director of Public Prosecutions had not and might never have consented, and which the Attorney General had not or would not have permitted.” Prosecutors had alleged O hAnnaidh could be seen in a recording of the gig in 2024 wearing and displaying the flag of Hezbollah while saying “up Hamas, up Hezbollah”.

After the CPS announced its appeal, Kneecap said in a social media post: “Once again, this is a massive waste of taxpayers’ money, of police time, of court time.

“Once again, there are endless news reports about Mo Chara, about Kneecap, but we are NOT the story.

“We will fight you in your court again. We will win again.” 

The hearing before Mr Justice Edis and Mr Justice Linden is due to conclude on Wednesday.