⁠Met Police refuse to say if it shared classified documents

The Met Police is refusing to admit the existence of a classified document, which pro-Israel groups used to lobby the government over the proscription of Palestine Action.

In a document produced by We Believe in Israel, Stop the Hate UK, and The Shield of David, it states:

In July 2022, the group was investigated under counter-terrorism protocols following intelligence suggesting contact between some of its members and individuals linked to Hamas-aligned networks abroad (see:Metropolitan Police briefing, classified)

It’s well documented that the Zionist lobby group We Believe in Israel (WBII) was a primary actor among those lobbying for the proscription of Palestine Action. It published a report in June 2025, titled ‘Palestine Action: A Case for Proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000’. Notably, the Guardian pointed out how Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s statement on the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was “similar” to the wording from this report.

Of course, The Canary’s least favourite MP – Luke Akehhurst is the former director of WBII. The self-proclaimed ‘Zionist shitlord’ previously claimed Israel’s actions in Gaza were ‘proportionate’.

Importantly, one of the other organisations involved in authoring the most recent report is Stop the Hate UK. This is the same group that has been attacking pro-Palestine activists and journalists.

Met Police refusal to answer

The Canary wanted to know whether the Met Police had shared classified documents with these pro-genocide hate groups, or whether someone had leaked them. We sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Met Police. In it, we asked if the Met had authorised the disclosure of the briefing to the three pro-Israel lobby groups. If it confirmed this, we wanted any documents related to the Met signing this off.

Additionally, we stipulated that if the document was not shared, whether the Met was aware of a leak, and whether they had taken action.

It took the Met over two months to respond to the initial FOI request, which is double the legal limit. In it, they stated:

The MPS is aware of a recent newspaper article which contained an allegation. As a result, the following press lines were issued:

IF ASKED: re alleged info shared about CT[counter-terror] investigations linked to Palestine Action with We Believe in Israel? No knowledge of any such information being shared with this group. Refer back to the group for clarification over this reference in their report.

It went on to say:

The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny whether it holds any information of relevance as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) does not apply by virtue of the following exemptions:

• Section 23(5) – Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters
• Section 24(2) – National Security
• Section 30(3) – Criminal Investigations
• Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
• Section 40(5)(B)(a)(i) – Personal Information

Still no answers…

We then asked for an internal review. Specifically, we asked them to reply to the part of our original FOI where we asked:

whether the MPS has investigated/is investigating how this classified document came to be in the possession of the three aforementioned third parties.

It then took them a further three months to reply. When they did, the Met said:

To clarify the MPS is neither confirming nor denying that any documentation i.e. this briefing document, is held. To answer the second part of your request, namely “if the Met was aware of the leak and b) if it has taken any action over it…providing details of this (how it became aware, what action it is taking, procedures going forward)” would inadvertently be confirming that a document existed, had been leaked and the MPS were investigating how this occurred and this is the very matter we are seeking to neither confirm nor deny that the MPS held this information.

So the Met is refusing to say whether a) it shared information with the three pro-Israeli groups or b) information was leaked to the same groups. Additionally, it’s also refusing to say whether this ‘classified briefing’ mentioned by the groups even exists.

It’s also unclear what role this report, which mentioned the classified briefing, then played in Yvette Cooper’s case for proscribing Palestine Action.

Of course, it’s arguably strongly in the public interest to know what the Met knows about this. There’s no world in which pro-Israel lobby groups should have access to classified police documents. The Met has questions to answer – but naturally it’s refusing.

Collusion with pro-Israel lobby groups certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility. In fact, the Met’s constant raids and arrests of pro-Palestine activists and the links with Zionist auditors targeting them make it seem all the more likely.

Feature image via HG