A PRO-PALESTINE activist will stand trial next week after losing her appeal in a landmark ruling that has clarified the scope of the alleged offence under the Island’s terrorism law for the first time.
Natalie Strecker, who has been involved with the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Campaign and describes herself as a human rights campaigner, pleaded not guilty to two offences when she appeared in the Royal Court in April.
The 49-year-old was charged 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.”
Ms Strecker is alleged to have made social media posts in support of Hamas and Hezbollah – both classified as proscribed organisations in the Island.
At a pre-trial hearing on 11 August 2025, Ms Strecker’s lawyer argued that the law does not extend to inviting support for the lawful activities of a banned organisation.
But the prosecution argued that the law makes no such distinction – inviting support for a banned organisation is an offence regardless of which activities the support relates to.
On 15 August 2025, Commissioner Sir John Saunders rejected Ms Strecker’s argument.
He ruled that the law does not distinguish between different types of activities carried out by banned organisations.
According to his ruling, inviting support for a banned organisation is an offence regardless of what aspect of the organisation’s work the support relates to.
Ms Strecker was given permission to challenge this decision, and her appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 22 September 2025.
The court dismissed Ms Strecker’s appeal, agreeing that the wording of the law was “clear”.
This marks the first time the courts have defined exactly what this terrorism offence covers since the law was passed in 2002.
The Court of Appeal ruled: “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.”
The court noted that “the words of the Article make no distinction between lawful and unlawful activities”.
In explaining the rationale behind the law, the court said the proscription regime is “designed to identify and condemn terrorist organisations whatever their origin and whatever their motivation” with the aim of denying proscribed organisations “the ability to receive encouragement, to solicit support and to raise funds”.
The court ruled that “support” can be provided in various forms including encouragement and the action of writing or speaking in favour of the proscribed organisation.
The court pointed to the English Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Choudary [2018], which established that “support” need not be practical or tangible.
The JEP understands that Ms Strecker sought permission to appeal the decision to the Privy Council, but this has been rejected.
She is due to go on trial before the Inferior Number of the Royal Court on 24 November. The trial is expected to last ten days.
