Terror arrest over Palestine Action RAF attack

Telegraph

3 days ago

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.'