# 'A Cold War mentality': the terrorism reviewer's case for counter-subversion

> In a 2025 lecture, the independent reviewer Jonathan Hall KC argued for 'counter-subversion' tactics and listed Gaza among issues an adversary might exploit.

- URL: https://www.brizenortonfiles.com/articles/jonathan-hall-counter-subversion-gaza
- Published: 2026-11-08
- Author: Investigations Desk, The Brize Norton Files
- Topics: The law, Proscription

## Key points

- Hall said he no longer considers 'State Terrorism' to be 'a useful concept', and that the line between terrorism and national security threats is increasingly blurred.
- In a passage framed as what a hostile intelligence officer would do, Hall listed 'contentious foreign policy issues such as Gaza' among the areas an adversary could exploit.
- Hall acknowledged that counter-subversion is 'associated with McCarthyism' and with some unjustified infiltrations of protest groups by undercover police.
- The National Security Act 2023 has been used against a domestic protest group for the first time in the charges over the protest at RAF Brize Norton.

Hall acknowledged that counter-subversion is "associated with McCarthyism and some unjustified infiltrations of domestic protest groups by undercover police". He still argued in his 2025 John Creaney QC Memorial Lecture that government, the intelligence services and the judiciary must be ready to use these tactics.

Jonathan Hall KC (King's Counsel) is the UK government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and state threat legislation. He said the UK needs a "Cold War mentality that sniffs out subversion", and more "social resilience against disinformation".

## What is 'counter-subversion'?

Hall's lecture was titled "Terrorism and National Security: Internal Threats and Internal Fears". He said he no longer considers "State Terrorism" to be "a useful concept", and suggested the line between acts of terrorism and national security threats was increasingly blurred.

He argued that the government, the intelligence services and the judiciary must be prepared to engage in forceful tactics of counter-subversion, in order to defend "the realm from internal dangers arising from actions of person and organisations which may be judged to be subversive of the State".

## What did Hall say about foreign interference?

Hall noted that "foreign interference" in domestic social issues is increasingly difficult to prove. To show where counter-subversion methods could be used, he gave a list of contexts, "thinking like an adversary":

> "If I was a foreign intelligence officer of course I would [...] encourage extreme forms of environmentalism, hoping that policies generated would damage my adversaries' economy or at least sow discord or hopelessness. I would sponsor Islamism and Islamist MPs and contentious foreign policy issues such as Gaza within politics. Social media would be a delightful playground for wedge issues. [...] I would promote anti-Semitism. My intention would be to cause both immediate and long-term damage to the national security of the UK by exploiting the freedom and openness of the UK by providing funds, exploiting social media, and entryism…"

The passage is a hypothetical, framed as what a hostile intelligence officer would do. It does not name any protest group or campaign.

## What does section 4 of the National Security Act require?

Section 4 of the NSA covers two things: accessing, entering, inspecting or approaching a prohibited place, and doing so for a purpose the defendant knows, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. No foreign state, foreign power or foreign interference needs to be proven. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Section 37 of the Act also requires the Attorney General's personal consent before proceedings can be instituted for this offence, and that requirement applies to the conspiracy count as well.

## Why does this matter for protest?

Charges under the [National Security Act 2023 (NSA)](https://www.brizenortonfiles.com/articles/national-security-act-section-4-protest) over the protest at RAF Brize Norton are the first time the Act has been used against a domestic protest group. The six accused, who deny the charges, face conspiracy charges under section 4 of the Act, which covers entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. Their trial is due to begin on 25 January 2027 at Woolwich Crown Court.

The defence argues that domestic protest aimed at UK foreign policy was never meant to fall inside an espionage statute. The Crown's position is that the words mean what they say.

The government proscribed Palestine Action days after the protest, and an appeal against that decision is before the Supreme Court. The [ban and its links to Brize Norton](https://www.brizenortonfiles.com/articles/palestine-action-ban-brize-norton) article covers the background.

## Questions and answers

**What is counter-subversion?**

Jonathan Hall KC used the term in his 2025 John Creaney QC Memorial Lecture. He argued that the state's agencies and courts must be ready to use forceful tactics against internal threats from people and organisations judged subversive of the State.

**Did Jonathan Hall mention Gaza?**

Yes. In a hypothetical passage about a hostile foreign intelligence officer, he listed 'contentious foreign policy issues such as Gaza within politics'. The same list included extreme environmentalism.

**Is the National Security Act 2023 being used against protest?**

Section 4 has been used for the first time against a domestic protest group, in the charges over the protest at RAF Brize Norton.

## Sources

1. Terrorism and National Security: Internal Threats and Internal Fears — Terrorism Legislation Reviewer
2. National Security Act 2023 — UK Parliament