KNEECAP v Thompson: Testing the Boundaries of Freedom of Expression

[Mackenzie Ellwood is a barrister at the Bar of Ireland. For the last year, she has work as a legal intern/desk officer for the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and she is currently an acting assistant moot coach with the Honourable Society of King’s Inns, Dublin.]

On 26 September 2025, musician Liam Ó hAnnaidh, who goes by the stage name ‘Mo Chara’, had his case concerning charges under the UK Terrorism Act 2000 struck out of the Chief Magistrate’s Court in London. The case was dismissed on the basis of a technical error occurring early on in the course of proceedings. Once the ruling was handed down, counsel for Mr Ó hAnnaidh poignantly informed the courtroom that “This case was every bit unjustified as it was flawed”. Mo Chara is a member of the Northern Irish nationalist rap group, ‘KNEECAP’, notorious for its satirical use of music to criticise and challenge movements in Irish and UK politics. More recently, the group has been openly and actively advocating against the actions of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mo Chara was accused of supporting proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah, for displaying their flag on stage at a performance on 21 November 2024 in the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, London. Mo Chara challenged the allegations at the outset, claiming that the charges have been raised as a means of distraction by the British Government, in suppression of their freedom of speech. 

The following post intends to illuminate the potential for disparity in the approaches taken by members of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR/the Court) in their purported recognition of Article 10, namely the UK and Croatia, but in an unusual and specific context: the tolerance of energetic republican performers boasting controversial repertoires, with tunes that are aggressive, both in rhythm and in rhetoric. First, I will provide an overview of the case-law of the ECHR in similar contexts. This will be followed by an assessment concerning Croatian tolerance (or perhaps even encouragement) of nationalist rock singer Thompson recording the highest number of ticket sales for a single concert in history, in July 2025. Based on the notoriety of both events – the charges of terrorism levied against Mo Chara, and the large-scale celebration of quasi-fascist phrases by Thompson – this post will compare and contrast the elasticity of Article 10 protection across two Member States acting under the same regime.  

The Court has endorsed tolerance in favour of freedom of speech under Article 10, particularly in the context of political opposition. In the seminal case of Handyside v. the United Kingdom, the Court commented that freedom of expression applies “not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb… Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’” (para. 49). Such forms of political opposition have been protected and defended by the Court in previous cases, including the case of Faber v Hungary, in which it was found that the respondent State had breached the applicant’s right to freedom of expression for detaining and fining him following his peaceful display of the Árpàd-striped flag within 100 metres from a socialist anti-racism demonstration (paras 6, 59). Based on the nature of KNEECAP’s self-proclaimed satirical style of music and performance (popular tunes include titles such as ‘Get Your Brits Out’, 2019), the display of a Hezbollah flag was intended to provoke a response and promote discussion.

Nonetheless, Mo Chara was charged by the Metropolitan Police under section 13(1)(b) and (3) of the UK Terrorism Act 2000. Critically, this is a strict liability offence. The prosecution need only prove that the way in which the article representing the proscribed organisation was displayed would lead to a reasonable suspicion that the accused supported the organisation in question. The compatibility of section 13 of the Terrorism Act with Article 10 of the ECHR was previously challenged and appealed in 2022, where the UK Supreme Court found that while section 13 amounts to an interference with the right to freedom of expression, it is not incompatible with the ECHR and is proportionate to prevent the proliferation of proscribed organisations within the UK. The charges pressed were therefore a stark indication of the UK executive’s stance on KNEECAP’s chosen medium. 

In the meantime, on 5 July, Croatian singer Marko Perkovic broke the record for the most tickets sold for a single concert event in history. Mr Perkovic is known professionally as ‘Thompson’ named after a US manufactured firearm and boasts a controversial repertoire. Specifically, the song “Bojna Čavoglave” opens with the fascist slogan “Za dom, Spremni”, meaning “For the Homeland – Ready”, which operates as a call and response phrase, and is controversial for being associated with the Nazi-allied Ustasha organization in Croatia during World War II. Perkovic served as a soldier during the Croatian War of Independence in the 1990’s, and is recognised as an ultra-nationalist performer. The patriotism of Thompson’s performance explicitly includes fascist rhetoric and the potential glorification of a regime in which thousands were detained and murdered on the basis of ethnicities, race, religion, and ideology. His followers are known for chants such as “Kill a Serb” and “Here we go Ustasha”, as well as fascist salutes at concerts. Despite the ongoing controversy and opposition from human rights groups, Thompson and his supporters are openly tolerated and even defended by members of the Croatian Government, including by the Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic, who described it as “part of Thompson’s repertoire”. 

In 2020, the High Misdemeanour Court of the Republic of Croatia determined that the use of “Za dom, Spremni” by Perković does not violate domestic public order legislation, contradicting a series of final verdicts in the same court between 2015 and November 2019, penalising individuals for chanting the slogan in public. The 2020 decision also diverges from the decision of the Court in Simric v Croatia, in which a fine was upheld against a Croatian footballer for chanting “Za dom, Spremni” at the crowd during a football match. The Court emphasised the footballer’s fame and status as a role model and the eruptive nature of sporting events, elements that might be considered relevant in the environment of a mega-rock concert (para. 45). 

In contrast to the case concerning Mo Chara and the UK Terrorism Act, the phrase “Za dom, Spremni” is addressed in Croatia through statutes, and exceptional usage is permitted for historical purposes. Nonetheless, when examined together, the comparable scenarios of Mo Chara and Thompson expose apparent inconsistencies and even double-standards in how Member States interpret the right to freedom of expression under the ECHR. Whilst promoting tolerance, the Court has underlined that: “… it may be considered necessary … to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify hatred based on intolerance, provided that the ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” (emphasis added) (Erbakan v. Turkey, para. 56). Despite KNEECAP’s openly satirical performance style, Mo Chara faced criminal consequences in the UK, yet Thompson’s ultra-nationalist rhetoric, performed to record-breaking audiences, has been treated as permissible in Croatia.  

These related scenarios reflect how context, history, and political convenience may affect individual states’ application of the letter of the law. The ECHR is incorporated differently into each legal system, as the UK operates under a common law system and Croatia is a civil law jurisdiction. In the UK, the ECHR is implemented via the Human Rights Act of 1988, and courts may interpret domestic legislation to be compatible with the ECHR “so far as it is possible to do so”. The separation of powers between the three branches of government is explicit in that even where a potential infringement is found, courts may only issue a “Declaration of Incompatibility”, leaving the decision to amend the law to the UK Parliament. In difference, the ECHR holds constitutional status in Croatia and incompatible legislation may be struck out by the Constitutional Court, which straddles several branches of government, as it wields parliamentary and judicial powers. Despite the difference in jurisdiction, the outcome of the cases of both Thompson and Mo Chara fell to the judiciary, albeit acting under rather different auspices. 

In the same way that the judge’s decision to dismiss the charges in Mo Chara’s case reflects misalignment and independence with the executive in the UK, the decision of the High Misdemeanour Court to permit Thompson’s overt nationalism reflects the opposite tendency in Croatia. This raises the question as to whether the ECHR intends to act as a baseline for Member States, setting the minimum standard for national enforcement of human rights, and what that standard entails. It further asks whether the source of such enforcement – via judiciary or executive – is relevant, as long as the outcome is the same. The contrasting approaches to the actions of KNEECAP and Thompson blur the boundaries of what amounts to acceptable forms of expression under the ECHR. Where on the spectrum does the display of a proscribed group’s flag diverge from the same moral or legal territory as the public celebration of fascist ideals by thousands of concert-goers? Without clear and consistent boundaries, freedom of expression risks being applied inconsistently and being eroded, as individuals grow uncertain as to where the line is drawn. Without consistency and clarity, Member States may risk the onset of a chilling effect, stemming effective political opposition and challenging democracy on an involuntary basis going forward.

Photo attribution: “WideAwakeBrockP230525” by Raph_PH is licenced under CC BY 2.0