Police Take No Further Action Over Palestine Action Post by Sarah Helm
Metropolitan Police say a post on X by the wife of the UK's national security adviser did not meet the criminal threshold
By AXY Tech Desk ·
Key points
- The Metropolitan Police said no further action will be taken over an X post by Sarah Helm, wife of national security adviser Jonathan Powell, that referred to Palestine Action.
- Police said specialist officers assessed the post and determined that it did not meet the criminal threshold for a criminal investigation.
- The post responded to a discussion about novelist Sally Rooney, whose publisher, Faber, stopped supplying her novels in the UK after she said she would donate royalties to Palestine Action.
The Metropolitan Police said on Saturday that no further action will be taken against Sarah Helm, the wife of the government’s national security adviser, after she posted on X referring to Palestine Action, a group proscribed as a terrorist organisation. The force said the post had been “assessed by specialist officers and it was determined that it did not meet the criminal threshold.” The decision closes a review that the Met had opened only a day earlier, and it means no investigation will follow from the post.
Helm, who is married to Jonathan Powell, wrote on X on Thursday: “God help us authors who support Palestine and Palestine Action.” The message was a response to a discussion about the novelist Sally Rooney, whose publisher has stopped supplying her novels in the UK after she said she intended to use her royalties to support the group. On Friday, the Met said it was “in the process of being assessed to determine whether any further police investigation may be required” after it became aware of an X post made on Thursday, 15 October, referencing Palestine Action. The Saturday statement reversed the expectation created by the Friday update, by concluding that no further steps were needed.
The story combines several areas that affect ordinary readers: the legal limits on speech about banned groups, the role of social media in public debate, and the commercial decisions of publishers. It also touches on the position of a senior government official’s family, which draws public attention even when a family member speaks in a personal capacity. Below is an explanation of what the decision means, how the process unfolded, and what remains open.
What Helm wrote and why it drew attention
Sarah Helm is a writer and journalist, and her post was a short reply on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The post was not a statement about any government policy. It was a reaction to a debate about whether authors who back Palestine Action should be treated differently from other writers. That debate was already heated because of the decision by Sally Rooney, one of the best-known contemporary British novelists, to direct her royalties to the group.
The prominence of the post comes largely from Helm’s marriage to Jonathan Powell, who is the government’s national security adviser. The national security adviser is a senior official who advises the prime minister on security, intelligence and related international matters. Because the role is close to the centre of government, the spouse of a holder of that office can attract scrutiny of anything they say publicly. The source material does not describe any link between Helm’s post and Powell’s work, and the police statement does not suggest that he was involved in the matter in any way.
It is also worth noting what the post did and did not say. It expressed a view about authors and Palestine, and it used the name of a proscribed organisation. Whether a statement like that is lawful depends not only on its wording but on the legal test applied under counter-terrorism law, which is explained in the next section.
How the police assessment unfolded
The timeline in the Met’s public statements is short but significant. On Friday, the force said it had become aware of the X post made on Thursday, 15 October, and that it was in the process of assessing whether a further police investigation was required. That wording signalled that the matter had been referred for review but had not been decided. Police forces commonly use this kind of language while they gather information and consider legal tests.
On Saturday, the Met gave its conclusion. Specialist officers had assessed the post and found that it did not meet the criminal threshold. The force therefore said that no further action would be taken. The statement did not describe in detail the reasoning behind that finding, so the public has the outcome and the basic process but not a full account of why the officers reached that view. Readers should keep that distinction in mind: the police decision is a conclusion about whether the post warranted a criminal investigation, not a finding that the post was acceptable in every sense.
The speed of the two statements, one day apart, reflects how quickly a social media post can become a public matter. Once a post is online, it can be shared, quoted and discussed within hours, and police forces often face pressure to respond publicly even while assessments are still under way.
Why Palestine Action is a proscribed group, and what the criminal threshold means
Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in July 2025. Proscription is a legal step under the Terrorism Act 2000, the main piece of UK counter-terrorism legislation, which allows the home secretary to ban an organisation that meets a statutory test. Once an organisation is proscribed, its members can face prosecution, and there are also offences connected to supporting it. According to the source material, support for the group is a criminal offence and is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The Terrorism Act has long contained a distinction that is central to cases like this one. Expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation is not automatically an offence. Under the Act, a defence exists for people who express such views provided they do not intend to encourage support for the group and are not reckless about whether they might do so. Other forms of conduct, such as inviting support, arranging meetings, or displaying items in a way that suggests support, can be treated more seriously. Because of this, the line between sympathy, opinion and unlawful support is often a matter of context and judgement.
The phrase “criminal threshold” describes the point at which police conclude that a person’s conduct may amount to an offence and therefore merits a formal investigation. Below that threshold, police may take no action, even if a statement is controversial, offensive to some people or legally uncomfortable for the author. In this case, the Met concluded that Helm’s post fell below that threshold. That does not mean every similar post would be treated the same way, because police must assess each case on its own facts.
For readers less familiar with the process, it helps to know that a police decision not to investigate is different from a court ruling. It is a decision by officers, based on their assessment at a particular time, and it does not prevent the matter from being reconsidered if new information emerges. The Met’s statement did not indicate that any new information was expected.
The Sally Rooney publishing decision and its wider impact
The post was a response to a discussion about Sally Rooney, whose novels include Normal People and Conversations with Friends. Rooney announced that she would donate her earnings from her books to Palestine Action. Following that announcement, her publisher, Faber, determined that it could not sell her novels in the UK. The source material says that this decision means her novels will not be supplied to booksellers in the UK.
The publisher’s decision illustrates a practical concern that often sits behind debates about proscription. Publishers, like other businesses, must consider whether distributing material linked to a proscribed organisation could expose them to legal risk. That risk is not only about a book’s content but about the commercial relationship with an author who has publicly said that money from their work will go to a banned group. Faber’s decision therefore reflects a judgement about legal and reputational exposure as well as an editorial position.
The Rooney case has also drawn attention because it raises a wider question for the book trade: how far a publisher can or should go in acting on an author’s public political statements. Some people argue that publishers should not be expected to decide which political views are acceptable. Others argue that when a publisher believes continued sales could breach the law, it has a duty to act. The source material does not say whether Faber has changed its position since the police statement on Helm’s post, and it does not say whether the decision is expected to be reviewed.
The connection between the two stories is that both involve the same proscribed group and the same question about how public expression is treated. The police decision on Helm’s post does not directly affect Faber’s decision on Rooney’s books, because the two decisions were taken by different actors under different considerations. Even so, readers may see the two cases as linked, because both show how quickly an expression of support for a banned group can have consequences across different parts of public life.
Posts on X and how police assess them
The post was made on X, a platform where short messages are often read out of context, screenshotted and shared widely. Such messages can be emotional, brief and open to several readings. A reader might see an author’s sympathy for a cause, while another might see an endorsement of a proscribed group. Police forces therefore face a difficult task when they assess posts like this one, because they must decide what a message most plausibly means, and whether the author intended to encourage support for an organisation that is banned.
For technology users, the case is a reminder that a public post on a social platform can be subject to formal police review, even if the author does not intend to break the law. A post can be deleted, but a screenshot or archived copy may remain, and the speed at which content spreads means that a short remark can attract attention long after it was written. The Met’s process, in which a matter is first assessed and then concluded, shows that the police can reach a decision without a prosecution, a charge or a court hearing.
Analysts who follow online speech and policing say that cases like this test where the line falls between expressing a political view and endorsing unlawful activity. They note that social media posts often carry little context, and that platforms, police and the public must interpret them quickly. The result can shape how people feel about posting on contentious subjects, particularly for writers, academics, journalists and public figures, who may be more likely to comment on political causes and more likely to be closely watched.
What to watch next
Several questions remain open. The Met has said Helm’s post does not meet the criminal threshold, but the statement reported does not set out the full reasoning behind that decision. Whether the force publishes more detail, or responds to further public questions, will shape how the outcome is understood. For now, the police position is that no further action will be taken on this post.
The Rooney situation is also worth watching. The source material says Faber determined it could not sell her novels in the UK, but it does not indicate that the publisher has revised that decision. Any change could prompt further debate about how publishers respond to authors who announce donations to proscribed groups.
More broadly, the case may prompt further discussion about how police assess social media posts linked to proscribed organisations, and about where the line falls between opinion and support. Readers should look for further statements from the Metropolitan Police, any change in the publisher’s position, and any wider guidance or public debate about how the offence applies to online comments. Because the legal test depends on intent and context, future cases are likely to be judged on their individual facts, and each decision may help clarify how the threshold is applied in practice.
Topics: Palestine Action, Sarah Helm, Jonathan Powell, Metropolitan Police, Sally Rooney, Faber, Terrorism Act 2000, X social media
Sources: BBC Technology