Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
The move is to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block, however lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening.
In his decision refusing the temporary block, 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, said 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.
'He had evidence before him of the evidence on possible employment rights and education rights and the right to liberty and he failed properly to determine that the balance of convenience fell in the claimant's favour.'
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'.
The barrister added: 'He failed to consider that the proscription regime was not necessary in a democratic society, because it wasn't proportionate to the aims sought, because there were alternative methods available to prevent the serious damage to property that was an issue.'
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'.
He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'.
The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.'
Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added.
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said that they hoped to give a judgment on the appeal shortly after 10pm.
Baroness Carr said: 'We will have a decision for you before midnight.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Cooper orders ‘crackdown' on suspected illegal working for delivery apps
Officers will carry out checks in hotspots across the country where they suspect asylum seekers are working as delivery riders without permission. It comes after Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat said they would ramp up facial verification and fraud checks over the coming months after conversations with ministers. Last week the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, claimed in a post on X to have found evidence of people working illegally for the food delivery firms during a visit to a hotel used to house asylum seekers. On Saturday, the Home Office said anyone caught 'flagrantly abusing the system in this way' will face having state support discontinued, whether entitlement to accommodation or payments. 'Strategic, intel-driven activity will bring together officers across the UK and place an increased focus on migrants suspected of working illegally whilst in taxpayer-funded accommodation or receiving financial support,' the Home Office said. 'The law is clear that asylum seekers are only entitled to this support if they would otherwise be destitute.' Businesses who illegally employ people will also face fines of up to £60,000 per worker, director disqualifications and potential prison sentences of up to five years. Asylum seekers in the UK are normally barred from work while their claim is being processed, though permission can be applied for after a year of waiting. It comes as the Government struggles with its pledge to 'smash the gangs' of people-smugglers facilitating small boat crossings in the English Channel, which have reached record levels this year. Some 20,600 people have made the journey so far in 2025, up 52% on the same period in 2024. Ms Cooper said: 'Illegal working undermines honest business and undercuts local wages, the British public will not stand for it and neither will this Government. 'Often those travelling to the UK illegally are sold a lie by the people-smuggling gangs that they will be able to live and work freely in this country, when in reality they end up facing squalid living conditions, minimal pay and inhumane working hours. 'We are surging enforcement action against this pull factor, on top of returning 30,000 people with no right to be here and tightening the law through our Plan for Change.' Home Office director of enforcement, compliance and crime, Eddy Montgomery, said: 'This next step of co-ordinated activity will target those who seek to work illegally in the gig economy and exploit their status in the UK. 'That means if you are found to be working with no legal right to do so, we will use the full force of powers available to us to disrupt and stop this abuse. There will be no place to hide.' Deliveroo has said the firm takes a 'zero tolerance approach' to abuse on the platform and that despite measures put in place over the last year, 'criminals continue to seek new ways to abuse the system'. An Uber Eats spokesperson has said they will continue to invest in tools to detect illegal work and remove fraudulent accounts, while Just Eat says it is committed to strengthening safeguards 'in response to these complex and evolving challenges.' Responding to the announcement, Mr Philp said: 'It shouldn't take a visit to an asylum hotel by me as shadow home secretary to shame the Government into action.' He added: 'The Government should investigate if there is wrongdoing by the delivery platforms and if there is a case to answer, they should be prosecuted. 'This is a very serious issue because illegal working is a pull factor for illegal immigration into the UK – people smugglers actually advertise it.' Mr Philp also said women and girls were being put at risk because deliveries were being made to their homes by people 'from nationalities we know have very high rates of sex offending', without specifying which nationalities he was referring to.
South Wales Guardian
27 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
Earlier on Friday 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. The move is to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block, however lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening. In his decision refusing the temporary block, 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, said 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. 'He had evidence before him of the evidence on possible employment rights and education rights and the right to liberty and he failed properly to determine that the balance of convenience fell in the claimant's favour.' 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'. The barrister added: 'He failed to consider that the proscription regime was not necessary in a democratic society, because it wasn't proportionate to the aims sought, because there were alternative methods available to prevent the serious damage to property that was an issue.' Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said that they hoped to give a judgment on the appeal shortly after 10pm. Baroness Carr said: 'We will have a decision for you before midnight.'
North Wales Chronicle
36 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Palestine Action to make Court of Appeal bid at evening hearing over terror ban
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move was to come into force at midnight after High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. But lawyers on behalf of the group will now bring their case to the Court of Appeal in a bid to challenge the decision at a hearing due to begin at 8pm on Friday. At a short, urgent preliminary appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr asked Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori: 'If this matter is going ahead, you need a decision from us by then, do you?' Mr Husain replied: 'Indeed.' Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said the hearing would last an hour, refusing a bid to extend it to 90 minutes. She said: 'We're less than five hours away, we've got to make our minds up on what we've got.' The head of the judiciary in England and Wales added: 'Both sides, if there was any prospect of an appeal, ought to have had all of these matters well in hand, if you were going to come to the Court of Appeal and ask for a decision by midnight. 'We are here now. We will do our best.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, 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.' Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.'
