Court shock as Liam O’Hanna avoids trial for waving Hezbollah flag

Kneecap artist Liam O’Hanna will not be tried for displaying a Hezbollah flag at a gig because he was not charged within the time limits.

O’Hanna, 27, was accused after counter-terror police studied a video from a gig at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town on 21 November 2024.

The rapper, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was charged with displaying a flag in support of Hezbollah, a proscribed organisation.

Officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command were made aware of a video circulating online on 22 April.

The Met said it would investigate online videos allegedly showing the group shouting ‘up Hamas, up Hezbollah’.

Kneecap previously said they have never supported Hamas or Hezbollah and would not incite violence against any individual.

An investigation led to the Crown Prosecution Service authorising the charge.

The charge in full alleged that he ‘displayed an article, namely a flag, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a supporter of a proscribed organisation, namely Hizballah, contrary to section 13(1)(b) and (3) of the Terrorism Act 2000’.

But the case was thrown out today (fri) as a summary offence needs to be charged within six months.

The ruling was due to be heard at Westminster Magistrates Court, but it was heard at Woolwich Crown Court instead because a burst pipe in a nearby street left the building without water yesterday.

Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring said: ‘This is not about innocence or guilt.

‘It is about whether the court has jurisdiction to hear this case. This ruling is confined to the issue of jurisdiction. It is confined to whether the proceedings were lawfully implemented within the time limit.’

‘It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the court at this stage to engage with the merit of the underlying allegation.’

But Judge Goldspring ruled that O’Hanna had been charged too late, and therefore dismissed the case against him.

‘These proceedings were instituted unlawfully and are null. The Crown failed to establish jurisdiction. The court has no jurisdiction.

O’Hanna’s supporters in the public gallery cheered after Judge Goldspring delivered his ruling.

Earlier O’Hanna’s defence lawyers argued that consent from the Attorney General was not gained until 22 May, which is more than six months after 21 November.

The prosecution argued that Attorney General consent which is needed for terrorism charges does not have to be gained immediately and that the CPS charging decision was made on 20 May and a postal requisition sent on 21 May.

Prosecutor Michael Bisgrove said the defence had argued that O’Hanna was wrongly charged by the police and not the CPS but he said this was incorrect.

He said: ’The decision was taken by the CPS on 20 May 2025.’

He said legislation did require consent from the Attorney General.

‘The ultimate conclusion is consent is not required at the point of charge, the process of charging and the subsequent entry of the charge on the register is an administrative step and doesn’t constitute the beginning of proceedings.

‘Where the defendant is charged with an indictable offence consent does not have to be obtained before the charge is entered to the Magistrates Court but does have to be obtained before it is sent to crown court for trial.

‘Entry of a charge on the register in a magistrates court can occur in very short times sometimes in minutes.

‘The modern process of entering a charge on the register is a formal administrative step and does not in itself involve the institution of proceedings.’

The judge said is was common for proceedings to be adjourned before being sent to a crown court as Attorney General consent had not been obtained before the first hearing at the magistrates court.

Mr Bisgrove said: ’In this case consent was gained at an appropriate stage in fact before it needed to be.

‘The delay gives the Attorney General time to reach an informed decision when the time between arrest, charge and first appearance may be short.

‘Magistrates courts are entitled to adjourn proceedings if the Attorney General has not had sufficient time.

‘We see that set out time and time again – consent simply isn’t required at the charge.

‘The principles apply equally whether it is either way, summary or indictable only.

‘Grant and refusal of bail and the like can all take place before consent is gained.’

Brenda Campbell, KC, defending, told the judge: ‘You have no jurisdiction to hear this case because no lawful prosecution was instigated within the statutory time.

‘In order for 21 May postal requisition to be a lawful institution of proceedings it required the consent of the Attorney General and the Director for Public Prosecutions before instituted.

‘Neither had been gained- in fact not even sought at that time and the proceedings are therefore invalid.

‘The statutory framework when given their natural meaning the language is clear, coherent and unambiguous.

‘The weight of the legal authorities strongly supports the defence case and undermines the points my learned friend has made.

‘The actions taken by the prosecution to obtain the permission and consent, albeit too late in the day on 22 May, strongly supports our position.

‘The fact that the Attorney General permission for the DPP to consent was not obtained by 21 May 2025 is not in dispute.’

Ms Campbell said the prosecution had previously been arguing that 22 May CPS charge was lawful and in time but had now accepted it was not so were now relying on the postal requisition charge on 21 May.

She said: ‘You will be well aware Mr O’Hanna has never been arrested, he’s here as someone whose been charged by postal requisition.

‘The time proceedings are instituted depends on the kind of proceedings.’

Ms Campbell said the prosecution were trying to stretch the language of the Terrorism Act to include a postal requisition as the time proceedings were instituted.

‘The only reason we are here today is because the prosecution sought urgently to comply with the statutory framework believing they had until 23.59 on 22 May to comply before realising they were out of time by one day.’