High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action 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 is set to come into force at midnight after a High Court judge refused Ms Ammori's bid for a 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.'
Lawyers for Ms Ammori were also refused permission to appeal and were told to go to the Court of Appeal itself.
The proposal was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action.
At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing due around July 21.
Mr Husain told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.'
The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'.
The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that there was no 'express provision' to protect lawyers representing her in the potential legal challenge from criminal consequences if the ban came into effect.
She also said that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'.
Ms Ni Ghralaigh later named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action.
'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?'
'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ni Ghralaigh asked.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the ban of Palestine Action.
The barrister also said that if a temporary block was granted, it would be a 'serious disfigurement of the statutory regime'.
He said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action.
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'.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
Four people were charged in connection with the incident.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
A ban against Palestine Action has come into force, designating it as a terror group after a late-night legal bid to delay it failed. 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. 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.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Reeves Tells Cabinet Next Tax Rise to Be Challenging, Times Says
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves told cabinet ministers that tax increases in the Labour government's fall budget are likely to be even more challenging than a £40 billion ($55 billion) package she put in place last year, the Times reported. Reeves said the new increases are likely to be smaller but that she has limited options as taxes need to rise to cover the cost of abandoning welfare reforms, according to the report. Her comments went further than her public statements that have been less explicit about the prospect of higher taxes, the Times said.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Pro-Palestinian Activists Lose Appeal Against U.K. Government Ban
A pro-Palestinian protest group has been banned as a terrorist organization by the British government, putting it on the same legal footing as the Islamic State and Al Qaeda in the first use of far-reaching security laws in response to property damage. The group, Palestine Action, which has targeted Israel-linked defense companies and vandalized military planes at Britain's largest Royal Air Force base, lost a legal bid to temporarily delay the law, and it is set to go into effect at midnight local time. Palestine Action's full legal challenge against the British government is still pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 21. The ban makes it illegal to be a member of Palestine Action, or to support it in a number of other ways, including by raising money for the group, 'glorifying' its activities, arranging meetings, sharing the group's social media material or wearing its merchandise. It is the first time the British government has used part of its 25-year-old definition of terrorism that covers 'serious damage to property' to ban a group — rather than prohibiting them because of the use or threat of violence — prompting criticism from a broad range of human rights groups and international bodies. In a statement issued on Tuesday, a group of United Nations special rapporteurs said they had contacted the British government to voice concerns that the ban would 'criminalize legitimate activities' and that 'acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
