CPS Announces Appeal to Uphold Judicial System by Challenging Judicial System

LONDON – The Crown Prosecution Service today announced its decision to appeal the dismissal of charges against Mó Chara, reaffirming our unwavering commitment to respecting judicial independence by not respecting this particular judicial decision.

The appeal demonstrates the CPS's dedication to the rule of law, specifically the rule that we are right and courts are wrong when they disagree with us.

"This case raises an important point of law that requires clarification," said a senior CPS spokesperson, declining to specify what that point of law actually is. "We believe the courts got this wrong, which is why we trust the courts to now get it right by agreeing with us that they got it wrong."

Background

Mó Chara, a member of Irish language hip-hop group Kneecap, was charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 following the display of a flag at a musical performance in London. The charge was dismissed by the Chief Magistrate - one of the most senior judicial figures in the magistracy - in a decision that, while legally sound according to someone at the top of their profession, failed to align with our institutional objectives.

The CPS has carefully reviewed the Chief Magistrate's decision and determined that even senior judicial expertise demonstrates precisely why we need to appeal - because we lost, and to someone important.

"We have the utmost respect for judicial independence and senior judicial expertise. That's why when a Chief Magistrate - someone at the pinnacle of the magistracy - exercises their judgment, we immediately appeal to demonstrate how much we value their professional opinion."

— Senior CPS Official (speaking on condition of being quoted)

Key Points

The CPS wishes to emphasize several crucial aspects of this decision:

This is not about targeting Irish artists: The fact that the defendant is an Irish language artist from Belfast is purely coincidental and completely unrelated to our decision to prosecute an Irish language artist from Belfast.
This is about an important legal principle: Specifically, the principle that when we charge someone with terrorism and the courts disagree, we should be able to keep trying until we get the result we want.
We respect the judicial system: Which is why we're publicly declaring that it made the wrong decision and must be corrected by itself.
This is not political: The fact that the case involves political expression, political protest, and politically charged symbols is entirely separate from our legal analysis (we insist).
We welcome debate: But only from people who agree with us. Dissenting views will be dismissed as lacking understanding of our important legal principles.

Statement from the Director of Public Prosecutions

"The CPS does not take the decision to appeal lightly. We have conducted extensive internal consultations with ourselves and have concluded that we are correct.

Some may see this as the CPS attacking the independence of the judiciary. Those people are wrong. We are actually defending judicial independence by demonstrating that courts can be overruled when they exercise their independence in ways we disagree with.

This case is not about Mó Chara being Irish, using the Irish language, or expressing Irish republican-aligned political views. It is simply about the fact that he displayed a symbol while being Irish, using Irish language, and expressing Irish republican-aligned political views. Completely different.

We are confident that this appeal will clarify the important legal principle that political protest can be criminalized when we deem it appropriate, which is a cornerstone of British democratic values."

— Director of Public Prosecutions

Responding to Critics

The CPS is aware that some commentators have suggested this prosecution represents overreach, selective enforcement, or institutional embarrassment masked as legal principle.

We categorically reject these characterizations and invite critics to consider whether they would be making the same arguments if they understood our position better (i.e., agreed with us).

Important Note: Any suggestion that this case demonstrates CPS unwillingness to accept judicial oversight should be disregarded. We fully accept judicial oversight, which is why we're appealing to get different oversight that agrees with us.

Furthermore, concerns about Anglo-Irish relations are misplaced. Our relationship with Ireland remains strong, and we're confident they'll understand why we need to prosecute their cultural ambassadors for expressing political views we disapprove of.

What Happens Next

The appeal will be heard by a higher court, where we will argue that:

The lower court's interpretation of the law was incorrect (unlike ours, which is correct)
Political context should not be considered when prosecuting political expression
The display of a flag in protest constitutes the same offense as material support for terrorism
If we lose this appeal, it will prove that the judicial system is flawed, thereby validating our decision to appeal in the first place

We are confident in our position and look forward to either winning this appeal or using our loss as evidence that we were right to appeal.

"No matter what happens, this appeal demonstrates the CPS's commitment to getting the result we want, which is the foundation of the British legal system."

— Senior Legal Advisor, CPS

- ENDS -

Notes to Editors

1. About the Terrorism Act 2000:

The Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offense to display symbols of proscribed organizations. The CPS interprets this to mean that any display, regardless of context, intent, or political expression considerations, constitutes an offense. The fact that courts have historically considered context is something we're trying to change.

2. About Mó Chara and Kneecap:

Kneecap is an Irish language hip-hop group known for provocative political content and anti-establishment messaging. This prosecution in no way validates their worldview about British authorities targeting Irish cultural expression. The fact that we're prosecuting them for Irish cultural expression is entirely coincidental.

3. Previous Cases:

Editors are asked not to inquire about how many people we've prosecuted for displaying other controversial flags at other events, as this comparison might make our selective enforcement obvious.

4. Good Friday Agreement:

Questions about Good Friday Agreement implications should be directed to... actually, please don't ask about that.

5. Definition of "Important Point of Law":

The specific legal point requiring clarification will be defined during the appeal process, or possibly afterward, depending on which arguments work.

6. Why Are We Really Doing This?:

This question is not permitted.

About the Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by police in England and Wales. We are committed to bringing offenders to justice, upholding victims' rights, and ensuring that the right person is prosecuted for the right offense, unless a court disagrees with us, in which case we appeal until we get our way.

Our core values include independence (from common sense), integrity (in our self-belief), and respect for the judicial system (when it agrees with us).

Our Vision: A justice system where courts make the right decisions - specifically, our decisions.

For Media Inquiries

CPS Press Office
Email: pressoffice@cps.gov.uk (auto-response only)
Phone: [Number rings indefinitely]
Out of Hours: Also unavailable

Please Note: Media inquiries will be acknowledged but not answered. Questions about the logic of this appeal will be filed under "Doesn't Understand Important Legal Principles."

The CPS is committed to transparency and open communication, which is why we won't be taking questions about this decision.