Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict.
But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme.
The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'.
In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge.
The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes.
They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.'
The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'.
The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts.
The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel.
Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.'
'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added.
The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself.
They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza.
'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.'
Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'.
He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start.
'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.
'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fulham 'gear up for contract talks with first-team star' after rejecting Champions League side's opening bid for striker
Fulham are preparing new contract terms for Rodrigo Muniz after turning down offers for the striker's services during the summer transfer window. The west London club have had a challenging few months during the break between seasons, having failed to tempt more than a back-up goalkeeper in the form of Benjamin Lecomte to Craven Cottage. Head coach Marco Silva has bemoaned his club's 'passive' activity in the window, and will be keen to swell his ranks if Fulham are expected to match or even exceed their 11th-place finish in the Premier League after the last campaign. The side will be keen to get a deal for Shakhtar Donetsk striker Kevin over the line before deadline day in an attempt to boost his front line, after having their opening bid knocked back. But Fulham will also look to strengthen up relations closer to home, after seeing off an approach for Rodrigo Muniz. The Brazilian star joined the club in 2021 and has been a stalwart in the side since coming back from his early loan move to Middlesborough. Make your 7 picks by 12.30pm every Saturday to win £1,000* Man City Fri Aug 2211:30 V Tottenham Muniz started this season in pitch-perfect form, scoring his club's only goal to share points with Brighton in their 1-1 draw on Saturday afternoon. As per the Evening Standard, the club are now increasingly keen to offer the star new terms on his current deal, after rebuffing an opening £34million bid from Serie A side Atalanta. Atalanta had pursued Muniz in a bid to replace the departed Marco Retegui, who was top scorer in the Italian top division last term. But interest from Italy is thought to have cooled in the wake of the rejection of their first bid. Despite this, however, Fulham remain focused on tying down their star, having come close to losing him, and are confident that they can when the window closes. Silva had been tight-lipped on speculation that Muniz was preparing to leave the Premier League side ahead of their club with Bournemouth, only interested in confirming that he would be in contention to play. 'I speak with him like any other player,' Silva added. 'He knows what I think about him, how important he is for our club. 'We will decide what is best for the club and Rodrigo.'
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
BBC ‘not institutionally antisemitic', editor says after row over Gaza coverage
The BBC is 'not institutionally antisemitic', a newspaper editor has said following a row over the broadcaster's coverage of the conflict in Gaza. James Harding, The Observer 's editor-in-chief said the perception of a 'political presence looming over the BBC' is a problem and the broadcaster needs to be 'beyond the reach of politicians'. The BBC has been criticised for a number of incidents in recent months which include breaching its own accuracy editorial guidelines and livestreaming the Bob Vylan Glastonbury set, where there were chants of 'Death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)'. Following the incident, UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said ministers expect 'accountability at the highest levels' for the BBC's decision to screen the performance. Mr Harding discussed the difficulties of covering the Gaza conflict when he delivered this year's James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival on Wednesday. He described how 'newsrooms are in a furious argument with ourselves over the coverage of Israel and Gaza', with the situation 'very hard to view dispassionately'. The Observer chief said this is true for all media organisations, particularly the BBC, and it is 'about as difficult as it gets in news'. Mr Harding said: 'This summer, Lisa Nandy has weighed in.' He said the Culture Secretary's office insists she did not explicitly ask Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, to 'deliver up' director-general Tim Davie 's resignation following the Bob Vylan incident, but 'people inside the BBC were left in no doubt that was the message'. Mr Harding said: 'The place became paranoid about how the BBC itself would cover the story; people around him thought the political pressure would be too much. 'Whatever your view of the hate speech vs freedom of speech issues, an overbearing government minister doesn't help anyone. 'The hiring and firing of the editor-in-chief of the country's leading newsroom and cultural organisation should not be the job of a politician. It's chilling. 'Political interference – and the perception of a political presence looming over the BBC – is a problem, one that we've got too accustomed to. 'It looks likely to get worse. We need to get on with putting the country's most important editorial and creative organisation beyond the reach of politicians now.' The broadcaster is also facing an Ofcom investigation into its documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone after a review found it had breached the corporation's editorial guidelines on accuracy. The programme was removed from BBC iPlayer in February after it emerged the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture. Mr Harding said the BBC is not antisemitic. 'I am Jewish, proudly so,' he said. 'I'm proud, too, to have worked for the most important news organisation in the world. 'The BBC is not institutionally antisemitic. It's untrue to say it is. 'It's also unhelpful – much better to correct the mistakes and address the judgment calls that have been wrong, than smear the institution, impugn the character of all the people who work there and, potentially, undermine journalists in the field working in the most difficult and dangerous of conditions.' The UK Government and the BBC have been asked for comment. Mr Harding is co-founder of Tortoise Media, which acquired broadsheet newspaper The Observer in April. Before he co-founded Tortoise Media, Mr Harding was editor of The Times from 2007 to 2012 and was in charge of the BBC's news and current affairs programming from 2013 up until the beginning of 2018. He also co-presented On Background on the BBC World Service and wrote the book Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin Became A Global Business. A spokesperson for the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: 'The Culture Secretary has been repeatedly clear that the role of the director-general is a matter for the BBC board. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue. 'The BBC has itself acknowledged a number of serious failings in recent months, including the broadcasting of the Bob Vylan set at Glastonbury. 'It is entirely right that the Culture Secretary raised these issues with the BBC leadership on behalf of licence fee payers.'
