AG v Strecker appeal is dismissed. Strecker’s actions do meet the threshold of “inviting support” under Article 13(1).

The case of AG v Strecker presents a significant legal challenge regarding the interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002, which criminalises inviting support for a proscribed organisation.

Here's a breakdown of the situation and the appeal heard on 26 September 2025:

Background of the Case

• Defendant: Natalie Strecker, a 49-year-old human rights campaigner and prominent member of the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
• Charges: Two counts under Article 13(1) of the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002, which states:
• “A person commits an offence if they invite support for a proscribed organisation.”
• Allegations: Strecker allegedly posted content on social media (X/Twitter) expressing support for Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are proscribed organisations in Jersey

Preparatory Hearing & Appeal (26 Sept 2025)

• The preparatory hearing was convened to determine whether Strecker’s actions met the threshold of “inviting support” under Article 13(1).
• The appeal on 26 September 2025 challenged the preparatory hearing’s interpretation of this article, likely arguing that:
• Her statements were political or humanitarian in nature, not incitement.
• The law’s application may infringe on freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• The term “support” needs more precise judicial interpretation. Does it include moral support, political advocacy, or only material assistance?

AG v Strecker appeal is dismissed.

• AG v Strecker 26-Sept-2025 - Appeal against a Preparatory Hearing decision to determine the interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Terrorism (Jersey) Law 2002.

• AG v Strecker appeal is dismissed. The judgement [40-42] says:-
• In our view, the wording of Article 13 is clear.
• Under Article 13(1), a person commits an offence if he or she invites support for a proscribed organisation and the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of property.
• The offence is not limited in its application to inviting support for the unlawful activities of the proscribed organisation in question, and the learned Commissioner was correct so to decide.
• It will be apparent from our judgment that
• We have not addressed the facts of the Appellant’s case and
• Nor have we addressed the rationale for proscribing Hamas or Hezbollah.
• The issue before us was a question of law concerning the ambit of the Article 13 offence.
• It is not necessary for us to consider the facts of the Appellant’s case (which have yet to be established).
• Nor is it necessary for us to consider the circumstances surrounding the proscription of any particular organisation.
• The scope of the offence remains as we have explained irrespective of the identity of the organisation.
• The only issue for decision in any particular case is whether the ingredients of the offence have been satisfied.
• That will be a matter for the trial court to determine at the Appellant’s trial.
• [42] The appeal is dismissed.

Legal Significance

This appeal is important because it

• Clarifies the scope of Article 13(1) especially in cases involving activism and political speech.
• Set a precedent for how Jersey courts balance anti-terror legislation with human rights protections.
• Influence future prosecutions under the Terrorism Law, especially in politically sensitive contexts.

References

• Jersey Royal Court to hear the case against a PRO-PALESTINE activist ... https://www.comsuregroup.com/news/jersey-royal-court-to-hear-the-case-against-a-pro-palestine-activist-charged-under-the-terrorism-jersey-law/
• Judgement https://www.jerseylaw.je/judgments/unreported/Pages/[2025]JCA234.aspx