Arrested for Reporting
Five journalists held a camera at a protest in England and were arrested under the Terrorism Act. They had press cards. They were covering the news. In the United Kingdom, in 2026, that was enough.
On October 9, 2026, police in Leicester arrested at least five journalists under the Terrorism Act 2000 while they covered a Palestine Action protest outside a drone factory tied to the Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems. The journalists were released without charge once they proved who they were — but the arrest itself is the story, and it drew alarm from the National Union of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and the floor of Parliament. We grade the facts as fact, carry the police’s account, and name what it threatens.
What this page is about
On Thursday, October 9, 2026, a protest was held outside a factory in Leicester, England — the UAV Tactical Systems plant, a drone venture tied to the Israeli defence company Elbit Systems, a recurring target of the direct-action group Palestine Action. Leicestershire Police moved in and arrested everyone present, and among those detained were at least five journalists: two reporters for the local Leicester Gazette and three freelance photojournalists. They were there to cover the demonstration. They were arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Section 13 makes it an offence to wear or display an article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion of being a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. In July 2025, the UK government took the extraordinary step of proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation — the first time a direct-action protest group had been banned under terror law — which turned expressing support for it into a terror offence. That is the legal machinery that swept up the press: in a crowd where showing sympathy for the group is now a crime, the police arrested the people photographing it too.
The journalists were held for roughly two hours and “de-arrested” once they produced press credentials; no charges followed, and about 35 protesters were released on bail. We are precise about that: this is not a case of reporters jailed, but of reporters arrested for doing journalism and let go only after proving they were journalists. That is the press-freedom problem, not a softening of it. The NUJ, Reporters Without Borders, and a motion tabled in Parliament by MP John McDonnell all said so. We grade the documented facts as fact, carry the force’s explanation that it arrested everyone “for investigation” and released those it cleared, and pose — rather than assert — the sharper charge that this was meant to deter coverage.
Books that go deeper on this story. Links are Amazon affiliate searches — buying through them supports the work at no cost to you.
The same investigation, restaged one beat at a time. Step through it here, or present it fullscreen.
Arrested for Reporting.
Five journalists held a camera at a protest in England and were arrested under the Terrorism Act. They had press cards. They were covering the news. In the UK, in 2026, that was enough.
The protest, the law, the arrests, the response
What happened in Leicester, the terror law used, how the journalists were treated, the police account, and who objected.
Five journalists, one drone factory.
FACTOn October 9, 2026, protesters gathered outside the UAV Tactical Systems factory in Leicester — a drone manufacturer linked to the Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems, a long-running focus of the group Palestine Action. When Leicestershire Police made arrests, they swept up at least five journalists who were covering the demonstration: two reporters for the Leicester Gazette and three freelance photojournalists. That credentialed journalists were among those arrested is documented across the trade and national press. Graded FACT.
The law: Section 13, and a proscribed protest group.
FACTThe journalists were arrested under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalizes wearing or displaying an article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion of membership in, or support for, a proscribed organisation. The organisation in question, Palestine Action, was proscribed as a terrorist group by the UK government in July 2025 — the first direct-action protest network to be banned under the terror laws, a move that made even expressing support for it a potential offence. That legal framework is what turned a crowd at a protest into a crowd of terror suspects, photographers included. Graded FACT.
Arrested, then 'de-arrested' — no charges.
FACTThe police arrested everyone at the scene and held them for roughly two hours. The journalists were released — 'de-arrested' — only after they provided identifying details and proved they had been there in a press capacity; no charges were brought against them, and about 35 protesters were released on bail. We state this precisely because it is both the mitigating fact and the damning one: no reporter was prosecuted, but each was arrested under terrorism law for taking photographs, and freed only on condition of proving they were journalists. The outcome does not erase the arrest; it defines the problem. Graded FACT.
The police account.
FACTWe carry the force's version in full. Leicestershire Police said that everyone present was arrested for the purposes of investigation, and that those arrested were de-arrested once their details were verified and no offences could be confirmed against them — in other words, that this was a procedural sweep, not a targeting of the press. That is the account on the record, and the reader is entitled to weigh it. The question it leaves open — the one the press-freedom bodies pressed — is whether arresting credentialed journalists first and verifying them afterward is a lawful necessity or a chilling default. Graded FACT that this is the police's stated position.
The alarm: the NUJ, RSF, and Parliament.
FACTThe reaction was swift and broad. The National Union of Journalists' general secretary, Laura Davison, said plainly that 'covering Palestine Action protests and taking photographs does not constitute support for the group.' Reporters Without Borders said it was 'deeply concerned' and that 'no journalist should have to weigh the risk of arrest against their duty to inform the public.' The Leicester Gazette's membership editor, Emma Guy, said 'the freedom to report is not optional.' And in Westminster, Labour MP John McDonnell tabled a parliamentary motion expressing 'alarm' at the arrests. When trade bodies, international press-freedom monitors, and Parliament all object at once, the concern is not fringe. Graded FACT.
“Covering Palestine Action protests and taking photographs does not constitute support for the group. — Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary”
The press card was supposed to be the answer
The reason this belongs in Who Controls What You Get to Know is simple: the point of covering a protest is to let the public see what happened, and the fastest way to stop the public from seeing it is to arrest the people with the cameras. It does not require a formal censorship order. A journalist who knows that showing up to a proscribed-group protest might mean two hours in a cell, a search, and the seizure of their equipment will think twice about showing up at all — and that second thought is the chilling effect, doing quietly what a ban on reporting would do openly. The machinery here is the proscription of Palestine Action under terror law, which cross-links this to Israeli Influence: a direct-action group whose target is an Israeli arms manufacturer was placed in the same legal category as a bombing network, and the overflow from that decision landed on the free press. We hold the fences — no one was charged, the force says it was procedure, the proscription’s merits are a separate fight — precisely so the documented core stands clear: in Britain, in 2026, you could be arrested under the Terrorism Act for photographing the news, and only the right paperwork got you out.
Questions worth taking seriously
They were released without charge — so what's the problem?
The arrest is the problem, not just a conviction. Credentialed journalists covering a protest were detained under terrorism law and freed only after proving they were press. Even with no charge, that means two hours in custody, a search, and the clear message that pointing a camera at a proscribed-group protest carries arrest risk. That risk is the chilling effect — it deters coverage without a single prosecution. The NUJ, RSF, and a parliamentary motion all treated the arrest itself as the violation, and so do we.
Isn't this just the police following the law, since Palestine Action is banned?
We carry the police account that they arrested everyone for investigation and released those they cleared. But “following the law” is exactly what’s in question when the law lets you arrest journalists for being near a protest. Section 13 is about displaying support for a proscribed group; taking a photograph for a newspaper is not that, as the NUJ said. Whether arresting the press first and verifying later is a lawful necessity or an abuse is the open question — we pose it, and we don’t pretend the procedural framing settles it.
Does covering this mean Black Book Audit supports Palestine Action?
No. This page takes no position on Palestine Action or on whether it should be proscribed — that’s a separate debate we don’t resolve here. The subject is narrower and should be uncontroversial across that debate: journalists must be able to cover a proscribed group’s protest without being arrested as if they were members of it. You can think the ban is right or wrong and still think arresting the press who report on it is a problem.
If you are named on this page
If you are named on this page, or are a party materially affected by the claims made here, and you wish to respond, correct the record, or add context, use the Contact page. Responses are published verbatim alongside the original claim, with the sender identified and the date of receipt. The channel stays open for the life of the page.
This site aggregates and grades a record that other outlets and primary sources have already put on the record. Every FACT-graded claim above is sourced to court filings, government reports, sworn whistleblower disclosures, published investigative journalism, or named-source statements. The citations are the accountability mechanism; this section is how you get on the record too.
The record
- Press Gazette — At least five journalists arrested at Palestine Action protest
- Novara Media — Journalists arrested under the Terrorism Act at a protest against an Israeli arms company
- Left Foot Forward — police ‘blanket arrest’ journalists under the Terrorism Act
- Middle East Eye — Leicester police ‘blanket arrest’ journalists covering the Elbit protest
- Middle East Eye — MP John McDonnell raises ‘alarm’ in Parliament about the arrests