Banning Palestine Action an 'abuse of power', High Court told
The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
On July 4, Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge over that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
The case returned to the High Court in London on Monday, where lawyers for Ammori asked a judge to grant the green light for a full legal challenge against the decision to ban the group, saying it was an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression.
Raza Husain KC said: 'We say the proscription of Palestine Action is repugnant to the tradition of the common law and contrary to the [European Convention on Human Rights].'
The barrister continued: 'The decision is so extreme as to render the UK an international outlier.'
Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.'
'The consequences are not just limited to arrest,' Husain later said, telling the court there was 'rampant uncertainty' in the aftermath of the ban.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also for Ammori, later said: 'The impacts [of proscription] have already been significant.'
She continued: 'Dozens and dozens of people have been arrested for protesting, seated and mostly silent protest.'
The barrister later told the court that Merseyside Police had bailed arrested protesters with a condition not to mention Palestine.
'People have been bailed to not mention Palestine?' Justice Chamberlain asked, with Ms Ni Ghralaigh replying: 'It is a condition of bail that they do not mention Palestine.'
'The Secretary of State has not distanced herself from any of these actions,' she continued, adding that Cooper had not described actions like this as an 'overreach'.
The Home Office is defending the legal challenge.
READ MORE: Three men arrested under Terrorism Act after national Palestine demo in Edinburgh
Previously, Ben Watson, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
James Eadie, representing the department on Monday, said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC.
He said: 'Judicial review is, and has been accepted to be, a remedy of last resort and that is for very good and well-established reasons.'
However, Husain told the court on Monday morning that the POAC was not 'convenient nor effective' in this case.
He continued: 'It would be quite absurd to say that we should tolerate the consequences of the proscription […] even if it is unlawful, and just go to POAC.
'That is an absurd position.'
In written submissions, Eadie (above) said that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription.
He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.'
Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.
More than 100 people were arrested across the country during demonstrations this weekend protesting against the proscription, with protests held in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Bristol and Truro on Saturday.
Saturday's arrests brought the total number of people arrested since the ban came into force to more than 200, with more than 72 arrested across the UK last weekend and 29 the week before.
The hearing before Justice Chamberlain concluded on Monday, with the judge saying he would give his decision on July 30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action ban coupled with Online Safety Act ‘a threat to public debate'
The Online Safety Act together with the proscription of Palestine Action could result in platforms censoring Palestinian-related content, human rights organisations have warned. Open Rights Group, Index on Censorship and others have written to Ofcom calling on it to provide clear guidance to platforms on distinguishing lawful expression from content deemed to be in support of terrorism. They say failure to act by the regulator act risks misidentification – including through algorithms – of support for Palestine as support for Palestine Action, which on 5 July became the first direct action protest group to be banned under UK anti-terrorism laws. It also runs the risk of misidentifying objections to Palestine Action's proscription as unlawful support for the group, the signatories claim. Sara Chitseko, a pre-crime programme manager at Open Rights Group, said: 'Crucial public debate about Gaza is being threatened by vague, overly broad laws that could lead to content about Palestine being removed or hidden online. There's also a real danger that people will start self-censoring, worried they might be breaking the law just by sharing or liking posts related to Palestine and non-violent direct action. 'This is a serious attack on freedom of expression and the right to protest in the UK. We need to ensure that people can share content about Palestine online with being afraid that they will be characterised as supportive of terrorism.' The organisations' concerns are exacerbated by Ofcom's advice that platforms can avoid worrying about their duties under the Online Safety Act (OSA) if they ensure they are more censorious than the act requires. 'This approach risks encouraging automated moderation that disproportionately affects political speech, particularly from marginalised communities, including Palestinian voices,' the letter says. Unlike in the EU, there is no independent mechanism for people in the UK to challenge content they feel has been wrongly taken down. The signatories want platforms – the letter has also been sent to Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance – to commit to an independent dispute mechanism, if evidence emerges of lawful speech being suppressed. The letter, also signed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in the US and organisations from eight European countries, as well as experts and academics, says: 'We are concerned that the proscription of Palestine Action may result in an escalation of platforms removing content, using algorithms to hide Palestine solidarity posts and leave individuals and those reporting on events vulnerable to surveillance or even criminalisation for simply sharing or liking content that references non-violent direct action. 'We are also concerned about what platforms understand by their legal duties regarding expressions of 'support' for Palestine Action.' The letter comes a week after the OSA's age-gating for 'adult' material came into effect, prompting fears about access to Palestine-related content. For example, Reddit users in the UK have to verify their age to access the Reddit sub r/israelexposed. Ella Jakubowska, the head of policy at EDRi in Brussels, said there would inevitably be suppression of 'critical voices, journalism and social movements around the world. The problem is worsened by automated content moderation systems, well known for over-removing content from Palestinian creators, in support of Black Lives Matter, about LGBTQI+ issues and more. 'It is very likely that in trying to comply with these requirements, platforms would unjustly remove content from people in the EU and other regions.' She said that would contravene laws such as the EU Digital Services Act, designed to strike a balance between keeping people safe online and freedom of expression. An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'We have provided detailed guidance to platforms about how to identify the particular types of illegal and harmful material prohibited or restricted by the act, including how to determine whether content may have been posted by a proscribed organisation. 'There is no requirement on companies to restrict legal content for adult users. In fact, they must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping people safe.' Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance were all approached for comment.
Powys County Times
5 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Further arrest over damage to planes at RAF Brize Norton
A further arrest has been made in connection with two aircraft being damaged at an RAF base. A 22-year-old man, of no fixed abode, was arrested on Friday in Bedford on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, Counter Terrorism Policing South said. Two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on June 20. The arrested man is currently in police custody, police added. The action, which was claimed by the group Palestine Action, caused £7 million worth of damage to the aircraft. The Government moved to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws after the group claimed responsibility for the action.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Terror arrest over Palestine Action RAF attack
Counter-terrorism police have made a further arrest over an attack on two aircraft at an RAF base claimed by Palestine Action. A 22-year-old man, of no fixed abode, was arrested on Friday in Bedford on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The arrested man is currently in police custody, Counter Terrorism Policing South added Two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on June 20. The action, which was claimed by the group Palestine Action, caused £7m worth of damage to the aircraft. Four people were charged last month in connection with the incident. The Government subsequently moved to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws after the group claimed responsibility for the action. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful'. However, Palestine Action's co-founder has since won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Lawyers for Huda Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. In a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable' and would be heard at a three-day hearing in November. However, he later refused a bid to temporarily pause the ban on the direct action group until the outcome of the challenge. In his first ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.' The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.' He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.' The judge refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it. He also refused the request for a temporary block, finding there was a 'powerful public interest' in the ban continuing and there was not a 'material change of circumstance' since a previous hearing. Following the first ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.' She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.' Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. Previously, Ben Watson KC, also for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer. He said in a summary of his ruling: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.' In his 18-page written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. 'That would be a recipe for chaos. 'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.' The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'. He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'. But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. 'This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' Mr Justice Chamberlain later dismissed a bid by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about the POAC. Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said on Wednesday that he understood Ms Cooper's decision, adding: 'As long as that's the law, we'll enforce the law rigorously, because supporting a terrorist organisation is a serious offence.'
