Sally Rooney will remain ‘committed supporter of Palestine Action', court told
The Irish author said in court documents that the ban would prevent her from speaking at future public events as she 'could not in good conscience disguise or lie about my principles' if it comes into effect at 12.01am on Saturday as planned.
If the ban does come into effect, it would make membership of, or support for, Palestine Action a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Rooney has provided support for a legal claim by Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, against the Home Office, over the decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Ms Ammori asked a High Court judge on Friday to temporarily block the move from becoming law over the weekend, ahead of a bid to be given the green light to challenge the Government's decision later this month.
But in a ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to block the ban, stating that any harm caused is 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'.
Barristers for Ms Ammori are seeking to appeal against the ruling on Friday evening.
In her witness statement, cited in Mr Justice Chamberlain's judgment, Rooney said the 'cultural effects' of Palestine Action becoming proscribed 'could not be easily mended'.
She said: 'Though I am based in Ireland, my work is published in the UK. My novels regularly appear in bestseller lists, and I often travel to Britain to speak in public about my work.
'I am and will continue to be a committed supporter of Palestine Action.
'If… that support is criminalised, I will effectively be prevented from speaking at any future public events in the UK, since I could not in good conscience disguise or lie about my principles in public.
'If I continue to voice support for Palestine Action from my home in Ireland, what are the likely consequences? Will I be denounced publicly by the Prime Minister?
'Will bookshops go on stocking the work of an author the Home Secretary has branded a 'terrorist' simply for supporting a protest group?
'The BBC has adapted two of my books for television; both series are presently promoted on the iPlayer service. Normal People, which I co-wrote and produced, was the BBC's most-streamed series in 2020, with over 62 million views.
'My beliefs have not changed since the making of that series, and I have done nothing but continue to express them.
'If the expression of those beliefs becomes a terror offence under UK law, would the BBC continue to screen and promote my work?
'Is it likely that I could ever again collaborate with British public institutions like the BBC as I have done in the past?
'The cultural effects of proscription could not be easily mended, even if the Home Secretary later changed her mind.
'For any public figure to be labelled a 'supporter of terrorism' by the state would have serious consequences.
'It would likely end or severely restrict the careers of many emerging artists.
''Terrorism' is not a trivial word.'
In written submissions for Friday's hearing, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said that Rooney 'will continue to voice her support from Ireland' for the group.
He said: 'Given her public support for Palestine Action… she is concerned that being labelled a 'supporter of terrorism' would have serious impacts on her ability to collaborate and publicise her work.'
He continued: 'Ms Rooney notes that 'countless artists, writers and members of the public support direct action against complicity in what Israel is doing in Palestine', including Juliet Stevenson, Paul Weller, Tilda Swinton, Brian Eno, and other signatories to an open letter dated 30 June 2025.'
If Palestine Action loses its bid to temporarily block the move, it is due to become a terrorist organisation on Saturday, after the order was signed by the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe the direct action group last month, after two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an action claimed by Palestine Action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
My customer's neighbours REFUSED to cut down their hedge... so here's what I did next
A man who was fed up with his neighbour refusing to cut down their large hedge took drastic action. In a video shared on TikTok, the irritated homeowner, posting under the username @gardenyardzmowing1982, showed how something as mundane as a garden border can cause conflict. In the clip the frustrated gardener showed off the huge shrub separating his and his neighbour's homes. Panning across the garden TikTok users could see the metres-long shrub standing almost twice as tall as the neighbour. The TikToker claimed that the house next door had 'refused' to cut it back and he had been forced to take matters in to his own hands. His video then showed a time lapse of the content creator, dressed in navy trousers and a T-shirt, using a hedge trimmer to cut down at least a foot of growth. By the end of the video, the guerrilla gardener had taken off a considerable chunk from the top of the shrub and seemed satisfied with the transformation. And while the TikTok user was pleased with his handiwork, others were less than impressed and took tot he comments under his video to express their concerns. One user suggested the neighbour might sue and wrote: 'By Law in the UK you are allowed to cut anything overhanging your garden but not the entire hedge. If I was your neighbour I'd sue'. Another TikTok user echoed this, commenting: 'If it the hedge belongs to a neighbour you can cut anything over hanging on your side of the boundary but you are not allowed to reduce the height without permission. Criminal damage'. One voiced concern over local wildlife and asked whether the TikToker had considered nesting birds before shopping off the overhanging branches. They commented: 'I hope you avoided the nesting season?' and another joined in the sentiment, adding, 'Hedges are for wildlife as much as anything else. you could have simply trimmed the top not hacked it off. But then I suppose most people don't consider others, least of all the natural world.' While the TikTok user was pleased with his handiwork, others were less than impressed and took tot he comments under his video to express their concerns. While another suggested that the neighbour might have been growing the hedge tall for privacy reasons, writing, 'Maybe the neighbour wanted it tall for a reason. Probably to block out annoying neighbours'. Others criticised the keen gardener and asked why he had cut the hedge down and limited his own privacy with users writing: 'The hedge is great for privacy and wind protection', 'You should have left it, was more private' and 'why did you do his side you can't do it some people like privacy!'. According to the website you can only trim a hedge up to the property boundary. If you do more than this your neighbour could take you to court for damaging their property.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Miliband forced to pay solar farms to switch off
British solar farms have been paid to switch off for the first time as sunny days prompt a surge of clean power that could overwhelm the grid. The National Energy System Operator (Neso), which manages the UK's power grids and is overseen by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has issued switch-off orders to solar facilities this year, new research reveals. Operators are paid to switch off when these orders are issued, with the extra cost added to consumer and business energy bills. The solar operators claiming compensation are understood to include some of the UK's biggest energy suppliers, such as EDF Renewables and Octopus Energy. These payments are common for wind farms, which generate more power than cables can cope with on particularly windy days. Solar farms have always had a much smaller output and were mostly built in the South, where grid connections are good. However, the rapid recent growth of solar farms means they too are now being asked to switch off. Neso has said such action was essential to maintaining the stability of the UK's power grids. Critics said it was the latest example of consumers facing extra costs to meet Mr Miliband's net zero targets. Such 'constraint payments' are already common with wind farms because so many have been built in areas such as northern Scotland or offshore, areas without grid capacity to carry the power they generate. So far this year, constraint payments have cost consumers £650m, according to the Wasted Wind website. The cost is added to energy bills. Overall 'balancing payments' could hit £8bn a year by 2030 without massive grid upgrades, according to Neso estimates. Such upgrades would also be extremely costly, with consumers liable. The revelation that solar farm owners are now also claiming constraint payments came from research by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a charity that specialises in energy data. It found that five solar farms had been paid a total of £102,500 to reduce output by 3.6 gigawatt hours between February and June this year. John Constable, the charity's director, said the initial amounts were small but were very likely to rapidly grow, as happened with constraint payments to wind. He said: 'Britain's energy bills are surging and everyone wants to know why. Our work shows that subsidies are a key cause and constraint payments are a critical and growing factor. 'The UK has been subsidising renewables since 2002 and has spent over £200bn of bill payers' cash – equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
HMRC accused of cutting secret loan charge deal with large companies
The tax office gave secret 85pc discounts to large companies involved in the loan charge scandal, documents s. A Freedom of Information request has suggested that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) reached generous settlement deals with multi-million pound companies who used payroll loan schemes. Meanwhile, independent contractors were hit with life-changing bills. The agreements came to light after a campaigner submitted a Freedom of Information request which was then revealed in Parliament by Conservative MP, Greg Smith, during Treasury Questions on Tuesday. HMRC said it does not recognise the claims. MPs said the revelation was 'staggering'. Sarah Olney, Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, said: 'It is unacceptable that victims have been consistently refused the justice they deserve while large companies received settlements a decade ago. 'This information shows the need for a proper, independent inquiry that looks at the whole loan charge scandal.' The loan charge is a controversial law that left 50,000 self-employed workers with crippling tax bills and has been linked to 10 suicides. It was introduced in 2017 to target contractors who were paid through non-taxable loans rather than salaries. The loan schemes date back to the 1990s, and were often marketed as HMRC-compliant by respected tax advisers. But HMRC maintains that it never approved the schemes. It used the loan charge to claw back the unpaid tax from the workers, with many facing bills that exceeded their income. MPs and campaigners have accused HMRC of unfairly targeting and ruthlessly hounding the contractors while failing to go after the scheme promoters. Now, minutes of a meeting from 2019 between Lord Amyas Morse, who led the 2019 loan charge review, and the leader of the latest review, Ray McCann, reveal that HMRC offered discounts to settle the tax bills of employers who used the schemes. In the minutes of the meeting, Mr McCann is recorded as saying: 'The earlier settlement opportunity that had been open to large companies had included significant discounts, so that eventually the companies settled for somewhere in the region of 15pc in 2015.' He went on to say 'the contractors weren't offered these terms', and 'settlement opportunities have always had a discount, and contractor one is the only one that didn't.' Mr McCann is currently concluding the loan charge review, which was launched in January 2025 after calls from MPs. A former HMRC inspector, he was president of a professional body of tax advisers called the Chartered Institute of Taxation from 2018 to 2019. According to official figures, 800 companies paid HMRC £1bn through financial settlements related to the schemes between 2011 and 2015. This works out an average tax liability of £1.25m per firm. In Parliament earlier this week, Mr Smith said: 'A recent Freedom of Information request has revealed that, for a number of schemes, HMRC has settled with large corporations for just 15pc of what was owed. 'With the loan charge review ongoing, does the Chancellor agree with me that individuals should be treated no differently from the large corporations for which this precedent has been set?' Liberal Democrat MP Angus Macdonald, another APPG member, has tabled an Early Day motion – supported by 18 MPs so far – expressing 'astonishment' about the deals and the fact they have 'never been revealed to Parliament'. Mike Warburton, The Telegraph's tax columnist and former director at accountants Grant Thornton, said: 'These revelations have shown in stark contrast the way the Treasury and HMRC have treated large corporate taxpayers on the one hand and small contractors on the other.' Critics of the loan charge argue it retroactively punishes contractors who signed up to the schemes in good faith. The large timeframes involved create massive tax bills as years' worth of interest has rolled up on the debt. In one case, an individual earning £13,000 a year landed a £250,000 bill, according to the minutes of the meeting between Mr McCann and Lord Morse. Steve Packham, of the Loan Charge Action Group, said: 'Ten people have killed themselves as a direct result of HMRC's ruthless persecution of people who the Chancellor herself has described as 'victims of mis-selling'. 'Yet we now know that just a year before the loan charge was introduced to Parliament, HMRC agreed a deal with large companies letting them pay just 15pc of what they said they owed.' MPs and campaigners are now demanding that the Government offer contractors the same 15pc terms given to large corporations and open an inquiry into the scandal. Mr Smith, co-chairman of the Loan and Taxpayer Fairness APPG, said: 'It's absolutely staggering to discover that just a year before the loan charge was introduced to Parliament, that HMRC agreed a deal allowing large companies to settle for just 15pc of what HMRC said they owed, for use of similar arrangements.' He continued: 'Regardless of what Ray McCann recommends in his report on settlement terms, all those facing the loan charge and those pushed to settle to avoid it must all be offered no more than 15pc as full and final settlement.' HMRC said all settlements are agreed after considering the individual facts of each case and made under our published settlement terms. A spokesman said: 'We don't recognise these claims. We're absolutely committed to ensuring every taxpayer, regardless of size, pays the tax that's legally due. 'Given an independent review is under way it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.'
