94-Year-Old Human Rights Barrister Arrested for Holding Handwritten Anti-Genocide Sign While on Wheelchair

A 94-year-old human rights barrister has been arrested during a protest outside the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, after demonstrators held handwritten signs opposing genocide and declaring support for Palestine Action.

Margaret Owen OBE was among those detained during the demonstration on 27 September, which was organised by Defend Our Juries. The protest was aimed at challenging the UK's proscription of Palestine Action and highlighting concerns over the impact of terrorism legislation on political protest.

The incident has attracted particular attention because of Owen's age, with footage from the demonstration showing elderly and disabled protesters being detained by police.

Margaret Owen Was Among Those Arrested

Owen, a veteran human rights barrister and campaigner, was identified by multiple reports as one of the protesters arrested during the demonstration.

The signs displayed by protesters read: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' Police said officers were making arrests on suspicion of wearing or carrying an article supporting a proscribed organisation.

The Reddit post that helped the footage spread online described Owen as a 94-year-old Jewish human rights barrister being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The discussion underneath the post quickly became divided, with some users focusing on the legality of supporting Palestine Action while others argued that the protest was intended to challenge the proscription itself.

Why Were Protesters Arrested?

The key distinction in the controversy is between supporting Palestine and supporting Palestine Action.

Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation under UK law. As a result, displaying material that expresses support for the organisation can constitute an offence. Merseyside Police said the arrests were specifically connected to material supporting the proscribed organisation rather than opposition to the conflict or support for Palestinians generally.

The protesters, however, deliberately used the wording on their signs as part of a civil-disobedience campaign. Defend Our Juries has argued that the arrests demonstrate what it considers to be the excessive reach of the proscription and has called for Palestine Action to be deproscribed.

More Than 150 People Were Arrested or Reported

The protest continued for around 16 hours, with police confirming 82 arrests and 79 additional people reported for summons. Organisers subsequently said more than 150 people had been arrested during the demonstration.

Reuters footage from the protest also documented the large-scale arrests and the signs being held by demonstrators.

Many of those involved were older protesters. The presence of pensioners and people with mobility difficulties became a major feature of the images circulating online.

The Protest Has Renewed the Free Speech Debate

The arrests have reignited arguments about the UK's balance between terrorism legislation and freedom of expression.

Supporters of the protest argue that peaceful demonstrations and political messages should not result in terrorism-related arrests. Police and supporters of the existing law point to the fact that Palestine Action is legally proscribed, meaning the issue is not simply whether someone supports Palestine but whether their conduct amounts to expressing support for the banned organisation.

That distinction has also appeared repeatedly in the Reddit discussion surrounding the viral footage, where users offered sharply different interpretations of what the law means and whether the proscription itself is justified.

Owen's Arrest Has Become a Symbol of the Protest

Owen's arrest has become one of the most widely discussed moments from the Liverpool demonstration because of her age and long career in human rights law.

The incident does not mean that the woman shown in every photograph or video circulating online has been independently identified as Owen. The supplied image should therefore be described generically unless its original source explicitly identifies the person.

The wider controversy, meanwhile, continues to centre on a difficult legal question: how far the government can restrict expressions of support for a proscribed organisation while preserving the right to protest and criticise government policy.