Mansfield slams ministers over Palestine Action hunger strike

Published: 24 December 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Michael Mansfield KC has sharply criticised the government’s refusal to engage with hunger-striking prisoners linked to Palestine Action, calling the justification deeply flawed and troubling. The veteran human rights lawyer, widely respected for decades of landmark legal work, described ministers’ reasoning as detached from legal principles and humanitarian obligations. His comments have intensified scrutiny on the Ministry of Justice as pressure grows over the deteriorating health of several detainees.

Mansfield, who is not directly involved in the prisoners’ legal defence, has written to the justice secretary condemning the refusal to meet representatives of the hunger strikers. He described the decision as astonishing, particularly given the length of time many detainees have spent in custody without trial. The case has become emblematic of wider tensions between protest rights, national security concerns, and the state’s duty of care toward those in detention.

At the centre of the dispute is the Ministry of Justice’s assertion that engaging with hunger strikers could create what it termed “perverse incentives.” Officials argue that meeting prisoners who refuse food may encourage similar actions by others seeking bail or concessions. Mansfield has rejected this reasoning outright, saying it misunderstands the reality and gravity of hunger strikes. He emphasised that such actions represent profound personal sacrifice rather than strategic manipulation.

Speaking publicly, Mansfield argued that hunger strikes are rare precisely because they involve extreme physical and psychological risks. He said it was absurd to suggest people would willingly endanger their lives simply to influence bail decisions. According to him, refusal of food should be recognised as a form of conscientious objection, not opportunistic behaviour. He warned that dismissing such protests undermines established legal safeguards.

Drawing on historical precedent, Mansfield referenced previous hunger strikes, including those involving Irish republican prisoners. He noted that these actions did not spread uncontrollably throughout the prison system, contrary to government fears. Instead, they remained isolated, reflecting the seriousness of the individuals’ convictions rather than any perceived incentive. This context, he argued, should inform current policy decisions.

Mansfield also questioned the logic of maintaining a policy framework that allows discretion in exceptional cases, only to refuse its application when genuinely tested. He suggested that avoiding engagement in such circumstances renders the policy meaningless. From his perspective, the government’s stance appears more politically motivated than legally grounded, particularly given the sensitive nature of the protests’ cause.

The lawyer’s criticism carries significant weight due to his legal history. Mansfield has represented victims and defendants in some of Britain’s most significant cases, including the Grenfell Tower fire, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, and the Birmingham Six miscarriage of justice. His experience lends authority to his warning that fundamental legal principles risk erosion when political considerations dominate.

He also recalled representing Marian and Dolours Price, whose imprisonment and hunger strike during the Northern Ireland conflict became widely known. At that time, force-feeding was used, a practice now largely prohibited unless prisoners lack capacity. Mansfield suggested that lessons from those experiences should caution against dismissive responses to hunger strikes today.

According to Mansfield, the current protesters appear to be treated with undue suspicion due to their political background. He described ministers’ approach as dismissive, implying that the nature of the protest movement has influenced official attitudes. Such perceptions, he warned, risk undermining the principle of equal treatment before the law.

The hunger strikers in question were originally eight individuals arrested over alleged protest actions involving break-ins or criminal damage. All remain unconvicted and are awaiting trial. Each has already spent more than a year in custody, far exceeding the standard six-month limit typically observed before trial. Their prolonged detention has raised serious concerns among legal observers.

Recent developments have highlighted the physical toll of the protest. One detainee, Qesser Zuhrah, was hospitalised and ended her hunger strike after forty-eight days. Others continue to refuse food, with some exceeding fifty days without nourishment. One detainee with diabetes has adopted an intermittent hunger strike, refusing food every other day to mitigate immediate health risks.

Medical experts widely agree that prolonged hunger strikes can cause irreversible harm or death. Mansfield stressed that the authorities appear to have forgotten that the detainees remain legally innocent. He argued that their worsening health demands urgent reassessment of their detention conditions and bail status. Presumption of innocence, he said, must remain central to any decision.

Mansfield urged the government to evaluate each case individually, considering whether release on bail with strict conditions would be appropriate. He noted that courts routinely impose detailed bail conditions to manage perceived risks, including travel restrictions and monitoring requirements. Such measures, he argued, could balance public safety with humanitarian responsibility.

The Ministry of Justice has responded firmly to legal demands for a meeting with the justice secretary. A spokesperson said officials want the prisoners to accept medical support and recover, but insisted that engaging with hunger strikers would set a dangerous precedent. The statement reaffirmed the government’s refusal to meet representatives, maintaining that it would not encourage actions placing lives at risk.

This position has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups, who argue that dialogue does not equate to concession. They suggest that refusing engagement may actually escalate tensions and deepen mistrust between protesters and the state. For them, meeting representatives would demonstrate concern for welfare without undermining legal processes.

The controversy unfolds amid broader debate over protest rights in Britain. Recent years have seen tougher laws governing demonstrations, particularly those causing disruption or property damage. Critics argue that extended pre-trial detention for protest-related offences risks criminalising dissent and discouraging lawful expression.

Supporters of the government’s stance counter that protest movements must operate within the law and accept consequences when boundaries are crossed. They argue that hunger strikes cannot dictate legal outcomes and that maintaining consistent policy is essential. However, Mansfield insists that consistency should not override compassion or legal fundamentals.

As the detainees’ health continues to deteriorate, pressure is mounting on ministers to reconsider their approach. The situation poses difficult questions about the balance between deterrence, justice, and humanity. For Mansfield, the answer lies in reaffirming principles that protect both individual rights and the integrity of the legal system.

Whether the government will shift its position remains uncertain. What is clear is that the hunger strike has become a potent symbol of wider tensions within British democracy. Mansfield’s intervention has amplified calls for engagement, reminding authorities that legal processes must remain grounded in fairness, even amid political controversy.