Opinion: Through the removal of the mural, which appeared days after 900 people were arrested at a London protest against the ban on Palestine Action, those in power have arguably added to the legacy of the image
By Sophie Doherty, Open University
On September 9, while scrolling on Instagram, I saw multiple friends sharing images and reposts of Banksy’s new artwork, titled ‘Royal Courts of Justice, London.’ As I scrolled through more images of the piece, I saw content describing how the artwork was being covered up and how it could potentially be removed completely. By September 10, videos on social media showed the piece had been scrubbed off the wall.
The silencing of artists who make visual commentaries on legal and/or socio-political issues is not new. The Metropolitan Police have stated that they received a report of criminal damage and have taken action to cover the piece. However, the removal of the mural arguably adds to the power and legacy of the mural, further highlighting a question that the piece arguably seeks to raise: are laws, legal systems and those acting within it, complicit in violence?
The new Banksy piece appeared on September 8, 2025 on the side of the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The authenticity of the piece was confirmed when the artist posted a photograph of the mural on their Instagram account on the same day. With over 1.5 million likes, over 8,000 comments and over 44,000 reposts, this piece has attracted international attention, and no doubt will continue to do so. Banksy is known for creating public dialogue through controversial works, and this piece is no exception. The mural has received mixed public reception but this piece is interpreted to be a commentary on the addition of Palestine Action to the proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and the subsequent recent arrests of almost 900 protestors in London.
Security guards stand in front a new mural by the street artist Banksy at The Royal Courts of Justice on September 08, 2025 in London, England. Within hours of Banksy posting the image on social media, the artwork had been covered over and guarded by security officers. Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
The Explanatory Memorandum of The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organizations) (Amendment) Order 2025 provides justifications as to the addition of the Pro-Palestinian group to the proscribed terrorist organisation list, alongside other groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult, The Irish Republican Army, and The Ulster Volunteer Force.
How can the mural be interpreted as a visual commentary on the recent changes in law and to the recent arrests?
The image showed a judicial figure in traditional legal dress, wearing a gown and wig, on their knees hunched over as they appear to be about to strike a protestor with a gavel. The protestor lies on the floor, seemingly knocked over but holding their hands up, one of which holds a bloody placard. The image speaks of law’s violence and how law, legal systems, and legal actors themselves can be complicit in violence. The fact that the judge is kneeling could be read as a visual metaphor that law makers and adjudicators are on their knees, pointing to an extreme crisis in moral and legal decision making within legal systems. The power dynamic within the image is also implied as the judge occupies a position of physical and metaphorical power over the protestor.
The use of the gavel is also symbolic of legal power, authority, and decision making, and of literal and symbolic violences of law within the image: law’s authority becomes a weapon. The use of the gavel is one that has sparked criticism as the gavel is not used by judges in England and Wales. However to read it as a “mistake” would be ignorant of the visual iconography of law and popular representations of law and legal systems. Comparatively, justice is symbolised by many iconographies, including Justicia, who is a mythological character, but she still represents something about law and its ideals. Therefore, Banksy’s use of the gavel can be read as symbolic of law and perhaps symbolic of the violences of international law and legal systems, and ultimately a visual representation of the legal principle lex iniusta non est lex –’an unjust law is no law at all’.
While the power of law and legal actors is a dominant visual narrative in the artwork, it should be noted that the protestor also has their “weapon” in hand – a placard that is a testimony to lived realities and violences. Voice and artistic expression are a threat to established orders and institutions as they offer a visible critique and reflection on socio legal and political issues, that may highlight injustices and state failures.
The fate of ‘Royal Courts of Justice, London’ has been decided. Now, all that remains of the piece is a ghostly image, a stain on the Royal Courts of Justice – that will continue to haunt it. Through the removal of the piece, those in power have arguably added to the legacy and power of the image, further highlighting the silencing of those who wish to speak out against injustices and the violence of systems in power.
The recent case of ‘Bloody Beautiful’ (2021) by artist Wee Nuls is a perfect example of this, as the censoring and complete defacing of her artwork attracted international attention for the Menstruation Matters campaign and further solidified their core messages. On closing the article, I am reminded of one of the central messages arising from Wee Nuls’s ‘Bloody Beautiful 2.0’ (2021) mural: ‘You can censor the art… But not the movement.’
Dr Sophie Doherty is a Lecturer in Law at the Open University and co-founder of OU Law and Humanities Research Cluster.
Follow RTÉ Brainstorm on WhatsApp and Instagram for more stories and updates
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ