UK police are accusing a licensed Irish human rights lawyer, who previously represented Hamas, of belonging to theproscribed group.
Fahad Ansari was detained returning from a family trip to Ireland. While being held, Ansari claimed confidential legal information accessed on his phone was “processed,” and described the involvement of UK police in this was unlawful.
On 5 May, the Guardian reported that:
Ansari is challenging the stop at the port of Holyhead on 6 August last year, claiming his detention and the processing of data from his phone containing legally privileged lawyer-client communications were unlawful.
The outlet also reported that during a risk assessment on Ansari, a detective inspector:
who authorised the detention of Fahad Ansari under the Terrorism Act on his return from a family holiday in Ireland, wrote “Hamas” in the space reserved for “membership of a known group”.
Ansari denies any such membership and said the following about UK police suspicions.
As a solicitor from Ireland, seeing this in black and white was chilling: it echoes a dark period when the British state targeted lawyers for representing members of another proscribed group [the IRA].
This is not Belfast in the 1980s when such messages were delivered with bullets, but the intention is the same: represent Hamas and face consequences. By trying to intimidate lawyers like me, the British state is effectively seeking to strip my clients of their voice in court.
Ansari’s lawyer said in a legal submission presented to UK authorities.
The claimant is not a member of Hamas. His only association with the organisation is his instruction as their solicitor in the de-proscription proceedings lodged in April 2025.
Equating the lawyer with the client
The detective who wrote the form has since said that UK police procedures will be reviewed.
What I had intended to write was that Mr Ansari worked as a solicitor for Hamas, and not that he was a member of this group.
He additionally claimed that the apparent error:
did not affect any of the decisions that any other officers took in relation to Mr Ansari.
Ansari’s solicitor said that “representation of Hamas” was:
equated with membership. DI [police number] 2556 was essentially equating the claimant with his client.
Between 8 and 12 August 2025, the claimant’s work mobile phone was downloaded and copied. The contents have been examined.
Ansari’s legal representative called police actions an unjust move, in his words:
a directed and targeted stop against a practising solicitor acting for persons of interest to law enforcement and the intelligence and security services.
They said “a key purpose, if not the primary purpose” of stopping Ansari at the Irish border “was to obtain access to his phone.” Clearly, UK police involvement was the primary complaint.
Hamas is currently challenging the UK’s proscription in British courts. Ministers in the last government described the effort as “sickening.”
In a riposte in the legal press in April 2025, Ansari made clear this was a legal right built into existing British terrorism legislation, and included scrutiny by the UK police.
Featured image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
From Canary via This RSS Feed.