United Kingdom first · open data
The law,
shown openly.
Legal nuances, people's tribunals and case research, brought into the open. Follow the sources, distinguish the commentary, and learn how to navigate the system yourself.
Built for people and for AI: llms.txt · open data · tiles.json
Explore: People & public records · Research library
Sovereign AI
Supporting evidence: nine wording changes between two versions of the Sovereign AI procurement guidance, with source files, metadata and archives.
Petition
UK Parliament · Petition 778631Create a taskforce to review laws containing the term “reasonable”
Whose perspective counts? A petition calling for a review of laws using “reasonable”, clearer wording, and explanations of how people’s circumstances are considered.
View petition ↗ · opens in a new tabResearch collectionUK · Research collectionPalestine Action
What is legal? What is normal? What is real? Cases, proscription, institutional accountability and the evidence behind the arguments.
CommentaryCommentary and research questionsMental health in the UK
The inverse Catch-22: mental health, disability support and institutional accountability. A satirical starting point, followed by evidence and questions—not a finding of benefit misuse.
Legal studyBegging is no longer an offence. Section 5 can still apply without any victim coming forward, but likelihood must be proved by evidence.Aggressive begging: when does asking become a crime?
The Vagrancy Act was repealed in England and Wales on 29 June 2026, so begging is no longer a crime in itself. There is no offence of “aggressive begging”. Threatening, abusive or disorderly conduct can still fall under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which does not need anyone to say they were distressed, but the courts require evidence that someone present was likely to be. The Court of Appeal has said “aggressive” and “passive” are not the legal test.
Legal studyHow bizarre it is widely available on Amazon.The Anarchist Cookbook and section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Commercial availability and criminal liability are different questions. The court record documents an Amazon purchase; the law turns on the material, knowledge and reasonable excuse—not a title alone.
Legal studyPPT, the Guardian and the publicity paradoxAnonymity orders
An order can protect a person’s identity while its own existence becomes news. PPT illustrates the distinction between anonymity, reporting restrictions and secrecy about proceedings.
Legal studyThe system trusts jurors to judge the evidence, but gives judges control over the legal framework and the evidence they receive.Defences removed by the judge, not considered by the jury
Why can a judge rule out a defence before the jury hears it? Where does legal gatekeeping end and deciding the facts begin? A closer look at pre-trial rulings, criminal damage, reasonable excuse and jury independence.
Legal studyShe reported herself two hours later. Her frankness was commended. The outcome was disbarment.Frameworks of truth: what does the system reward?
A disciplinary case, an argument about incentives, a proposal to distinguish what is asserted, signed, supported, checked and found, and the wider legal framework of knowledge, silence and dishonesty that surrounds them.
Legal studyFahad Ansari, Riverway Law and the challenge to UK proscriptionHamas deproscription
The application to remove Hamas from the UK’s proscribed list: who brought it, the reported appeal history, the legal route and the documents still needed to establish progress.
Legal studyZarah Sultana’s speech, the Commons explanation and the FOI trailHansard and the disputed record
What the published record shows, what the MP disputes, and why the later disclosure matters. The initial ‘not held’ response is not the end of the story.
Legal studyCraig Murray and the limits of anonymous reportingJigsaw identification
Not naming someone is not always enough. The Murray judgments examine identifying information in context—and distinguish deliberate publication from an intention to break the law.
Legal studyToday a court screens the case on paper, and the state can take it over at any stage. We propose hearing both sides from the start.Private prosecution and staying in control
In England and Wales anyone may bring a private prosecution, although some offences need the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General. A case usually starts with a paper decision on a summons, and the Director of Public Prosecutions can take it over at any stage. We propose an open first hearing where both sides are heard. As an optional improvement, the Crown Prosecution Service would be invited to that hearing so the takeover question is settled there. Replacing the summons and limiting later takeover would need an Act of Parliament; notifying the Crown Prosecution Service could be done by court rules or practice.
Legal studyViolence, the hypothetical bystander and police conditionsPublic order and protest
The difference between riot, violent disorder, affray and the separate powers regulating protests. A source-led guide to the reasonable-firmness test and the amended statutory framework.
Public-record profileDefence advocacy, jury independence and the contempt proceedingsRajiv Menon KC
A dedicated record of Menon’s work and the proceedings arising from his Filton closing speech. Court decisions, the defence position and wider professional concerns are kept distinct.
Public-record profileCourt record and public backgroundRoger Hallam
The Heathrow and M25 appeals, earlier trial reporting, mentions in other judgments, and the public background of a climate campaigner. Outcomes and sources kept distinct.
Public-record profileThe Filton proceedings, his account, and the public recordSean Middlebrough
A sourced profile of Sean “Shibby” Middlebrough. Read the later court reporting alongside his earlier account, without confusing different Filton defendants or trials.
Legal studyWhen the existence of proceedings is itself restrictedSuper-injunctions
Anonymity protects an identity. A super-injunction adds a restriction on revealing the existence of the order and proceedings. The difference matters for public scrutiny.
Legal studySection 69: after a jury convicts of an ordinary offence, a judge alone decides whether it had a terrorist connection.Terrorist connection add-on
Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020 lets a judge find, after conviction, that an ordinary offence such as criminal damage had a terrorist connection. The jury is not asked. The finding brings a longer sentence, restricted release and police notification duties. In 2026 one judge found it in the Filton case and another rejected it for the Barclays5. Scotland requires the connection to be charged and proved.
Research dossierBurnley · England and Wales · case update availableBarclays5
On 21 August 2026, the judge ruled out terrorist-connection sentencing in the Barclays5 case: the damage was not serious enough in the terrorism sense. Sentence for criminal damage had not been reported by 25 October. The earlier reporting is retained below as a historical record.
Research dossierFilton · England and Wales · case update availableFilton6
Four defendants from the Filton case were sentenced on 12 June 2026 after a judge found a terrorist connection; they have appealed. The original dossier also covers the initial six defendants and the wider Filton proceedings.
Research dossierSentencing law · Hansard · historical dossierSection 69 in Parliament
The 2021 House of Lords debate on who should decide a terrorist connection, with the statutory sources collected in July 2026. For the current law and the 2026 Filton and Barclays5 rulings, read the legal study Terrorist connection add-on.
Research dossierJudicial review · United Kingdom · historical dossierProscription litigation
The challenge to Palestine Action’s proscription and the litigation sources collected in July 2026.
Research dossierRemand · United Kingdom · historical dossierThe hunger strikes
Sources on the prison hunger strikes, custody conditions and reported bail decisions.
Legal nuanceBushell's Case · 1670 → Webster · 2026Jury conscience
Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. There is no general prosecution appeal against an acquittal. In 2026 the Court of Appeal said the oath to try a case on the evidence leaves no right to do the opposite.
Legal nuanceTerrorism Act 2000 · s.1The definition of terrorism
Section 1 defines terrorism. It is not itself an offence. Serious damage to property can meet it, with no injury — but only if the other tests are met, and "serious" is a real threshold.
Legal nuanceTerrorism Act 2000 · ss.11–13Proscription
Once a group is banned, membership and inviting or recklessly expressing support are offences punishable with up to 14 years. Displaying an article is a different, summary offence: six months.
Legal nuanceDPP v Ziegler · 2021Lawful excuse
The Supreme Court held that blocking a road in protest can be lawful if prosecution would be disproportionate. Later cases confined that reading, and a different "lawful excuse" in the Criminal Damage Act turns on belief in consent, not on the merits of the cause.
Legal nuanceECHR Article 7 · Human Rights Act 1998Law does not work backwards
No one can be convicted, or given a heavier penalty, for conduct that was not criminal to that extent when they did it. An old law can still be applied to new facts that were already inside it.
TimelineUnited Kingdom · 1986 – 2026UK timeline
How dissent became a crime in Britain, one act, one clause, one exemplary sentence at a time. A UK timeline, 1986–2026.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedThe Gaza Tribunal: Inquiry into British Complicity
A two-day UK tribunal at Church House, Westminster, held after a bill for an official inquiry stalled. It concluded that the British government failed its obligation to prevent genocide.
Legal studyTerrorism charges after a fire at a Czech arms factory with a disputed Elbit link. Accused, not convicted.Czech Elbit 10
After a fire at an LPP Holding factory in Pardubice on 20 March 2026, Czech prosecutors charged a terrorist attack and participation in a terrorist group. ČTK reports 11 people detained. Four of them deny involvement, according to ČTK. LPP says its planned cooperation with Elbit never went ahead. No trial date or verdict has been reported. Supporters call the group the Czech Elbit 10, now 11.
Public-record profileRichard James Schueler · crypto projects, litigation and the public recordRichard Heart
HEX, PulseChain and PulseX; the dismissed US civil case; Finnish criminal allegations; and the October 2026 detention in Türkiye. Separate proceedings, separate standards of proof.
Research dossierFederal proceedings · United States · historical dossierPrairieland · the United States
The Prairieland prosecutions and sentencing coverage, with government accounts distinguished from reporting and commentary.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedThe Belmarsh Tribunal
A travelling people's tribunal named after the London prison where Julian Assange was held, convened while he fought extradition to the United States.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedThe Gaza Tribunal (international)
An international people's tribunal that sat in Sarajevo and Istanbul and whose Jury of Conscience delivered a moral judgment that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
Independent tribunalIndependent tribunal · concludedUyghur Tribunal
A London people's tribunal that found, beyond reasonable doubt, that China committed genocide against Uyghurs — through measures to prevent births, not mass killing.
Primary sources first
Follow the statute, judgment or official record. Historical research imports are clearly dated and marked for review.
Findings attributed
A tribunal's findings are quoted as its own. We never present an accusation as a verdict.
Open data, AI first
Everything here is structured JSON, regenerated on every change, free to reuse.