06366-25 Moshelian v The National

Summary of Complaint

1. Michelle Moshelian complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The National breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Terror laws used to proscribe Palestine Action ‘too broad’, review finds”, published on 11 November 2025.

2. The article reported on a report produced by the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice, which reportedly “found that the current official definition of terrorism is too broad and ‘extends beyond acts of violence or serious threat”.

3. The article was accompanied by a photograph of “Kneecap’s Liam Og O hAnnaidh”. The caption to this photograph said that his “charge was thrown out”, and the article reported that he “was charged under section 13 [of the Terrorism Act] for allegedly holding up a Hezbollah flag at a gig, before the case was thrown out due to a technical error.”

4. It then reported that “Hundreds of alleged Palestine Action protesters have been charged under the same law, the majority for holding up banners that said: ‘I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.’”

5. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format. This version of the article was accompanied by a different photograph of Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, which was simply captioned with his name and the image source.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported that “hundreds of Palestine Action supporters” had been charged under section 13 of the Terrorism Act. She said that, as of the date of the article’s publication, approximately 138 individuals had been charged under the Terrorism Act for supporting Palestine Action. To support her position, the complainant provided a press release from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which was dated 5 September 2025. This said: “The total number of charged cases for showing support for Palestine Action since the group’s proscription in July 2025 is 138.”

7. The complainant also said that the inclusion of a photograph of Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh adjacent to the article’s reference to Palestine Action was misleading. She said the "the placement of this image immediately adjacent to the discussion of Palestine Action protesters creates a misleading visual association. This unrelated incident — involving support for the proscribed terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is distinct from Palestine Action — risks conflating separate legal matters and implying a direct connection to the Palestine Action charges described in the text”.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It noted that the complainant had provided CPS figures, which only covered England and Wales and not Scotland. Further, the publication noted the 138 number came from early September, two months prior to the article’s publication. It added that by November 20, nine days after the article’s publication, the Metropolitan Police had issued a statement which confirmed that – in London alone – 254 people had been charged “for showing support towards the proscribed group Palestine Action.”

9. Turning to the photograph of Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, the newspaper said the article made clear why his picture was used and what his connection to the article was.

10. The complainant said that no official source had, prior to the article’s publication, published any information which would indicate that “hundreds” had been charged. She provided the most recent government statistics on the topic, which showed that – as of 14 November 2025 – 243 people had been charged. She said while this confirmed that it was correct to report that “hundreds” had been charged, this was not known at the time of the article’s publication.

11. The complainant added that the article gave the misleading impression that the claim about the number of arrests had been made by either the report cited in the article, or the Home Office.

12. The publication did not accept that this was the case, and said that the article made clear when it was quoting from the report.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

13. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant had accepted that it was correct that “hundreds” of Palestine Action Supporters had been charged, and the publication had provided evidence of this. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point. There was – therefore – no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

14. The article under complaint made clear that Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh had been charged in relation to showing support for Hezbollah. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the inclusion of his photograph was misleading in the manner alleged by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

15. The article did not claim that the report or the Home Office had made any reference to the number of those charged under the Terrorism Act for supporting Palestine Action. The Committee did not, therefore, consider that these figures were inaccurately attributed in the manner alleged by the complainant, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 12/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/03/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.