The hearing in London\u2019s high court of the UK Crown Prosecution Service\u2019s bid to overturn the decision to throw out the terrorism case against Kneecap rapper Liam \u00d3g \u00d3 hAnnaidh has been adjourned until 2pm.<\/p>\n
Lord Justice Edis, who is hearing the appeal with Mr Justice Linden, told barristers in court shortly before the adjournment that they would hand down their ruling in the case at a later date.<\/p>\n
The rapper, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was accused of displaying a flag in support of proscribed terror organisation Hizbullah at a gig at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, on November 21st, 2024.<\/p>\n
But the case was thrown out in September last year, with chief magistrate Paul Goldspring ruling the proceedings were \u201cinstituted unlawfully\u201d.<\/p>\n
Judge Goldspring had agreed with \u00d3 hAnnaidh\u2019s lawyers that prosecutors needed to seek the permission of the attorney general to charge the rapper before informing him on May 21st that he would be charged with a terror offence.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is appealing against the decision at the High Court, with \u00d3 hAnnaidh opposing the appeal.<\/p>\n
Kneecap\u2019s JJ O\u2019Dochartaigh, whose stage name is DJ Provai, and manager Daniel Lambert are attending the hearing in London.<\/p>\n
Paul Jarvis KC, for the CPS, said the attorney general\u2019s permission was in place before \u00d3 hAnnaidh\u2019s first court appearance on June 18th, meaning the requirements were met.<\/p>\n
The barrister said in written submissions that the requirement for the attorney general or director of public prosecutions\u2019 agreement applies \u201cwhen the defendant appears before the magistrates\u2019 court to answer the charge he faces\u201d.<\/p>\n
Mr Jarvis continued: \u201cThat 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The barrister said if the chief magistrate\u2019s ruling was correct, it would likely mean proceedings would be \u201cinstituted\u201d when written charges are issued, rather than when a defendant appears at court to answer the charge.<\/p>\n
Mr Jarvis said: \u201cThe appellant submits that that is an example of the tail wagging the dog.\u201d<\/p>\n
The barrister later said that as the attorney general\u2019s permission had been given on May 22nd, \u201cit follows that valid consent to the respondent\u2019s prosecution was in place before the proceedings against the respondent were \u2018instituted\u2019 on June 18th, 2025\u201d.<\/p>\n
However, Jude Bunting KC, for \u00d3 hAnnaidh, said Judge Goldspring\u2019s findings were \u201cunassailably correct\u201d.<\/p>\n
He continued in written submissions: \u201cThe answer to this appeal is straightforward\u2026 The necessary permission and consent were not provided at the time the proceedings were \u2018instituted\u2019.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The barrister said no previous case supported the CPS argument that magistrates\u2019 court proceedings are only \u201cinstituted\u201d when a defendant appears in court.<\/p>\n
Mr Bunting continued: \u201cThe appellant\u2019s 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 \u2018instituted\u2019 at multiple different points in the same set of proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n
The barrister later said written charges can lead to defendants pleading by post and never appearing in court in person.<\/p>\n
He continued: \u201cA 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Prosecutors had alleged \u00d3 hAnnaidh could be seen in a recording of the gig in 2024 wearing and displaying the flag of Hizbullah while saying \u201cup Hamas, up Hizbullah\u201d.<\/p>\n
After the CPS announced its appeal, Kneecap said in a social media post: \u201cOnce again, this is a massive waste of taxpayers\u2019 money, of police time, of court time.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce again, there are endless news reports about Mo Chara, about Kneecap, but we are NOT the story.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe will fight you in your court again. We will win again.\u201d<\/p>\n
The hearing before Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Linden is due to conclude on Wednesday. \u2013 PA<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The hearing in London\u2019s high court of the UK Crown Prosecution Service\u2019s bid to overturn the decision to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":284229,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75],"tags":[18,117,21029,19,17,4066,130,393],"class_list":{"0":"post-284228","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-entertainment","8":"tag-eire","9":"tag-entertainment","10":"tag-hizbullah","11":"tag-ie","12":"tag-ireland","13":"tag-kneecap","14":"tag-london","15":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/115894545517259223","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=284228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284228\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=284228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=284228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=284228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}