Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage.
In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries.
They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.'
The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight.
Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'.
MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday.
Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident.
They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block.
Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight.
The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid.
In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law.
'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.'
They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.'
In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.'
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block.
She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.'
She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'.
Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.'
She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Palestine Action terrorist ban comes into force
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. READ MORE: RECAP – Palestine Action in court to challenge UK Government's terrorist ban They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. READ MORE: The National set to launch collaboration with Declassified UK Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' READ MORE: More than 600 Gaza killings recorded at aid sites and humanitarian convoys, UN says She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The best fences couldn't keep intruders out, RAF insiders claim
The highest-security fences surrounding Britain's military bases can be broken into within five minutes, Royal Air Force insiders have claimed. Spending 'many millions' to install barbed wire-topped high fences at every base would therefore not materially improve security, they argued. Just weeks after Palestine Action activists broke into RAF Brize Norton, Britain's largest air base, the soon-to-be proscribed group has pledged to raid others in protest against Israel's war in Gaza. The Telegraph has found a number of the RAF's most important bases are susceptible to such attacks, with 'vulnerable' airstrips protected by hedges, wooden fences or nothing at all. Security weaknesses included wooden fences, drystone walls, weakly defended emergency access points and unmanned gate barriers. A mooted future home for the new nuclear-capable F35 fighter jets is kept behind a 5ft-high fence. The Telegraph has chosen not to name the bases visited or to detail precisely where weaknesses are along their perimeters. But the revelations prompted calls for a programme of fence-building to prevent future break-ins. RAF insiders, however, said the best barriers could still be broken into in 'three to five minutes'. 'The bottom line to the defence estate and certainly the RAF estate is that we have big chunks of land in the middle of nowhere, and those big chunks of land have massive perimeters,' one source said. 'Now let's say we did put up – at the cost of many millions of pounds, and I have no idea how much it would cost – 12ft high fencing. 'Heathrow call it three-minute fencing because their security team estimates that a high security fence will only delay somebody with intent and with the right tools for approximately three to five minutes. 'So you can put up as much fencing as you like, but it's not a panacea.' Sources said the Armed Forces could not afford to install 'thousands of miles' of high-security fences and instead had to focus on protecting the 'most sensitive' assets. 'We put security where we think we really need it, where our key most sensitive assets are, and we can't afford to put it everywhere,' one said. 'So let's focus on what the key things are and not on what we don't deem essential. 'Does that mean we don't want bigger fences, more fences and larger ones? No, we do. 'You could probably wander around the Army estate or the Navy estate and you'd find exactly the same things. Because again, the high-sensitive areas will have high security.' The source added: 'So how do you do security? You choose the areas that are most sensitive and that need to be most secure, and then you focus on that.' The Armed Forces also use intelligence, CCTV, electronic sensors, patrols and reaction forces to secure their bases, and measures have been enhanced since the Brize Norton infiltration, they added. A review is currently underway to assess weaknesses and identify improvements, a Ministry of Defence spokesman revealed. They added: 'We take security extremely seriously and operate a multi-layered approach to protect our sites, including fencing, patrols and CCTV monitoring. 'Following the security incident at RAF Brize Norton, we are urgently reviewing security procedures across the Defence estate and have immediately implemented a series of enhanced security measures at all sites. 'After years of hollowing out and underfunding of the Armed Forces, the Strategic Defence Review concluded that we need to invest more in this area, backed by the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
The winners (and losers) from major Supreme Court decisions
But advocates for migrants, LGBTQ+ rights activists and others were left shaking their heads and vowing to find other ways to keep fighting on issues that went against them. And an appeals court that is proving to be more conservative than the Supreme Court racked up more losses. Here is a list of winners and losers from the court's term that began in October. Winners President Trump The president called a surprise news conference soon after the Supreme Court issued its final rulings of the term to praise the justices' work, including an opinion "that we're very happy about." "The Constitution has been brought back," Trump said about the conservative majority's decision limiting the ability of judges to block his policies from taking effect while they're being litigated. The opinion, which left uncertain which babies born in the United States will automitially become citizens, set off shockwaves among migrant communities. Even before that decision, the Supreme Court had helped Trump by lifting through emergency orders many of the pauses lower courts had put on Trump's efforts to slash and restructure the federal government and to rapidly deport migrants. The Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett trio There's no doubt about who was in control of a court that continues to move the law in a conservative direction though not as much as some justices want. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority on nearly every decision, followed closely by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. On the decisions that divided the court, they sometimes sided with the three other conservatives including when they ruled that lower courts likely went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship. The six conservatives were also united against the three liberals when they backed bans on gender affirming care for minors, age verification requirements for pornographic websites, states' efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and parents' desire to remove their child from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. But at times Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined with the court's liberals - and against Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Those decisions included rejections of conservative challenges to Obamacare and to a federal subsidy program for internet and phone services for poor and rural communities that is funded by user fees. Don't like the Supreme Court's rulings? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts Religious groups Religious groups continued their recent winning streak at the high court though with an exception. On the biggest of the three cases brought by religious groups - the Oklahoma Catholic Church's bid to create the nation's first religious charter school - the court deadlocked 4-4. But that's because Barrett recused herself from the case, and the issue is expected to come back to the court with different participants that don't have ties to Barrett. The court has already teed up another religion-based case for the fall, whether prison officials can be sued for violating the religious rights of a Rastafarian inmate whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. TikTok The court in January unanimously upheld a law intended to effectively ban TikTok in the United States. So why is TikTok and its tens of millions of users a winner? Because Trump has repeatedly declined to enforce the law, saying he's working on an alternate solution to the national security concerns. More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Losers 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals The appeals court that is arguably the most conservative in the country did not fare well again. The justices agreed to hear more appeals from the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals than from any other circuit and reversed more of its decisions, according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog. The times they did so included in rulings upholding the Biden administration's regulation of untraceable "ghost guns, the Food and Drug Administration's rejection of fruit- and candy-flavored vaping products, and Obamacare's requirement that insurers have to cover cancer screenings and other preventive care services recommended by a task force. Environmental regulations The court continued a years-long trend of narrowing federal protections for the environment, including taking away a tool the Environmental Protection Agency used to control water pollution. The court also let federal agencies scale back their environmental reviews of projects in a case involving construction of a railway in Utah. And the court said fuel producers can challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law. LGBTQ+ rights Five years after ruling that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace, the court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, The ideologically divided court said the ban does not discriminate against transgender people because the restrictions turn on age and the purpose of the medical treatment, not whether the patient is transgender. In a different case, the court said parents with religious objections to books with LGBTQ+ characters must be allowed to remove their children from class when those books are being used. And in an emergency order, the court allowed Trump to enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military while that policy is being challenged. Days after adjourning for the summer, the court announced it's taking up next term states' bans on transgender athletes joining female sports teams. Mixed results Gun regulations While the court said "ghost guns" can be subject to background checks and other requirements, it rejected Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence caused by Mexican drug cartels armed with their weapons. But gun violence prevention groups were relieved that, in siding with the gunmakers, the court didn't give the gun industry the broad immunity it sought. The groups are hopeful they can continue to hold gun makers accountable if they break the law. Parental rights While the court ruled against the Tennessee parents who want to get gender affirming care for their children, the justices backed parental rights in the case about LGBTQ+ storybooks. And the court's decision upholding Texas' age verification law for pornographic websites may have been foreshadowed during oral arguments when Barrett said she knows from her experience as a parent of seven children how difficult it is to keep up with the content blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. Disability rights The court sided with a Minnesota teen trying to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for not accommodating her rare form of epilepsy that makes it difficult to attend class before noon. That decision will make it easier for families to use the ADA to sue schools for damages over the lack of an accommodation for a learning disability. But the court sided against a retired firefighter who argued the ADA protects retirees as well as those able to work. The justices said the firefighter, who left the force due to Parkinson's disease, could not sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees.
