We first wrote to Hall on June 25th 2025. He had recently set out some of his ideas to the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, in the light of which, we asked him for a meeting. Living at a time when people who support Palestinian rights were being criminalised for supporting terrorism or somehow posing a threat to the British State, we thought it would be helpful if he could meet some of us face-to-face, to better understand each other's perspectives. ​We never got the meeting but had a good natured and highly revealing exchange.

​

The correspondence was as follows:

1. CAMPAIN's initial letter to Jonathan Hall KC, 25th June, inviting him to deepen his understanding of pro-Palestinian viewpoints  - see HERE

2. Hall's email response of July 1st - see HERE

3. CAMPAIN'S follow-up letter of July 5th - see HERE

4. Hall's email response of July 8th - see HERE

5. CAMPAIN's final email to Hall of July 21st - see HERE

​

We summarised correspondence and drew conclusions in THIS BLOG. We noted that Hall did not answer several important questions we asked him, and dug in his heels on the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, using a very weak argument about what he called threat neutrality. Threat neutrality gives the government the right to criminalise protest under the Terrorism Act 2000 without taking account of:

 

1. the context in which that protest occurs - according to Hall, it makes no difference whether the proscribed organisation is one like Palestine Action, that acts in support of international law about war crimes or official British policies about the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, or an extreme right-wing organisation that can claim no such justification, and

2. whether the proscribed organisation engages in violence against people (as in the case of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram etc.), or only against property (as in the case of Palestine Action).

​

Based on our exchange of correspondence, we concluded that Hall either lacks independence and is doing the bidding of his political masters or, that he lacks familiarity with, and empathy for, people involved with the Palestinian solidarity movement. A tweet by Craig Murray, reinforced by information in this article, inclined us to the former explanation. It showed that Hall had close associations to Israel and his father-in-law, Lord Dyson, is a Patron of the aggressive and litigious anti-Palestinian UK Lawyers for Israel.
 

Hall's heroic contribution to Channel 4 Dispatches

​

However, a later twist in this story gave us a more favourable view of Hall. In his contribution to the Channel 4 Dispatches Episode Palestine Action, the Truth behind the Ban of Feb 2026, he exposed Government's true motive for proscribing Palestine Action, i.e. that it had caused damage to property, and gave short shrift to Government insinuations that the proscribed organisation depended on support from foreign powers, notably Iran.

 

At 28 minutes into the episode, reporter Matt Shea put it to Hall that the Home Office had briefed some journalists that it was investigating links between Palestine Action and Iran. Hall was critical of this nudge-nudge-wink-wink behaviour and said he was not personally aware of any secret evidence lying behind the Government’s insinuations. On the contrary, Government’s true purpose in using terrorism legislation against Palestine Action was its wish to halt the repeated damage that Palestine Action was causing to property. Later in the programme (at 41.40 minutes), Shea revealed that the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems had for several years been lobbying Government for action to prevent the damage to its  property.  

​​

Significantly, Hall's testimony stood in contrast to that of Lord Walney (aka John Woodcock), the former Government advisor on political violence. It was Walney who had produced a key report recommending restrictions both on Palestine Action and totally peaceful protest, and that the organisers of these protests be held liable for the damages that the protest causes. It is worth watching Shea's interview (from 42.30 minutes) where Walney provided answers that were incoherent in comparison with those earlier provided by Hall. Notably Walney rolled out the Zionist trope that the pro-Palestine marches make Jewish people feel intimidated. Shea goes on to point out that Walney had previously been the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel and had paid positions as a lobbyist for the defence industry.