Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
The move is to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block, however lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening.
Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws would make membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA)
In his decision refusing the 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.'
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, said 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.
'He had evidence before him of the evidence on possible employment rights and education rights and the right to liberty and he failed properly to determine that the balance of convenience fell in the claimant's favour.'
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'.
The barrister added: 'He failed to consider that the proscription regime was not necessary in a democratic society, because it wasn't proportionate to the aims sought, because there were alternative methods available to prevent the serious damage to property that was an issue.'
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'.
He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'.
The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.'
Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added.
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said that they hoped to give a judgment on the appeal shortly after 10pm.
Baroness Carr said: 'We will have a decision for you before midnight.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Proscription of organisation won't end the debate around terror laws
This proscription has sweeping consequences – not only for activists formerly associated with the group, but for anyone expressing supportive views about its activities, sceptical feelings about its proscription, or displaying logos associated with the group. All of these activities can potentially expose you to significant criminal liability and risk of punishment under the Terrorism Act. In defence of this decision, Yvette Cooper argued that 'proscription is ideologically neutral', and that the UK Government is only 'demonstrating its zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology'. READ MORE: More than 20 people arrested at protest in support of Palestine Action This is reflected, she said, by the simultaneous bans imposed on two neo-Nazi groups, including a group describing itself as the Russian Imperial Movement and another called the Maniacs Murder Cult. But you might well think that one of these organisations is not quite like the others. Founded in July 2020, Palestine Action describes itself as a 'grassroots, direct action network' committed to disrupting arms sales from Britain to Israel. One of the founders of the organisation, Huda Ammori, made an emergency application to the High Court last week, asking for the proscription order to be suspended. Ammori's application for interim relief failed, and as of yesterday, Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation. In her evidence, Ammori characterised the organisation's aims as 'to prevent serious violations of international law by Israel against the Palestinian people, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid and genocide, and the aiding, abetting and facilitation thereof by others, including corporate actors' and 'to expose and target property and premises connected to such crimes and violation'. This disruption has most recently extended to RAF property, with the group claiming responsibility for gaining access to the Royal Air Force Base at Brize Norton last month, taking the opportunity to damage the engines and exteriors of two Voyager jets with red paint and crowbars. The Home Secretary also cites Palestine Action's 2022 at Thales UK in Govan as justification for the proscription. A small group of activists scaled a roof wearing red overalls, unfurled banners, and set off smoke bombs at the military equipment manufacturer. They have since been convicted of public order and property offences in Glasgow Sheriff Court, without any need to mobilise the Terrorism Act at all. Terrorism may be conventionally understood as the use of violence, especially against civilians, to pursue ideological ends, but as the High Court pointed out this week, UK law adopts a much broader definition of who can properly be classified as a terrorist. Blair-era legislation provides that actions taken for the purpose of advancing a political cause can be sanctioned as terrorism, 'if it involves serious damage to property, even if it does not involve violence against any person or endanger life or create a risk to health or safety'. 'In this respect,' as Mr Justice Chamberlain observed on Friday, 'the statutory concept is wider than the colloquial meaning of the term.' This gap has potential consequences. While Chamberlain emphasised that it is not the 'court's function to comment on the wisdom of the use of the power in this case,' it is difficult not to detect a degree of judicial scepticism in the reflection that the Home Secretary's decision to exercise this power 'in respect of a group such as Palestine Action may also have wider consequences for the way the public understands the concept of terrorism and for public confidence in the regime of the 2000 Act'. This point was picked up in the evidence of Professor Ben Saul, reflecting on the international context. Saul is the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. In his submission to the High Court, Saul pointed out that 'most responsible States globally have limited terrorism designations to extremist actors engaged in grave large scale atrocities' and 'treating 'direct action' against property interests as 'terrorism' seriously over-classifies the nature of the conduct, and is fundamentally contrary to best practice international standards on the nature and scope of terrorist acts'. Doing so, he suggests, puts the UK 'out of step with comparable liberal democracies,' where 'mere property damage has seldom been a sufficient basis for designating groups as terrorist'. The Home Secretary – and the overwhelming number of MPs who voted on the proscription order – disagreed. READ MORE: David Pratt: The shadowy figures behind US-Israeli aid operation Because it is now an offence for anyone to 'belong or profess to belong' to Palestine Action, exposing anyone who does so to a fine or prison term of up to 14 years. 'Inviting support' for the organisation is now also a criminal offence. So too is expressing any 'opinion or belief that is supportive' of Palestine Action in a way which is 'reckless' and might be interpreted as encouraging an audience to support the proscribed organisation. As civil liberties organisations Amnesty International and Liberty pointed out in their High Court intervention this week, 'there is a real risk that advocacy for the de-proscription of Palestine Action could amount to one or more offences under the 2000 Act.' The consequences don't end there. The Terrorism Act and the police officers charged with enforcing it are also going to have a new interest into what you are wearing. Once an organisation has been proscribed by the British state, wearing a T-shirt, wearing a badge, or carrying a banner 'in such a way' as to 'arouse reasonable suspicion' that you support Palestine Action becomes a crime. This restriction also extends to selfies or social media posts, picturing banners or signs which could be interpreted as sympathetic to the organisation. Under section 13 of the Act, publishing an image which arouses 'reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation' can attract a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine – not to mention the wider stigmatic consequences of carrying a conviction under the Terrorism Act around with you. Anyone who organises an event after this weekend which supports a proscribed organisation, which 'furthers its activities', or which is 'addressed by a person who belongs' to such an organisation will also now commit a terrorism offence. Section 14 of the Terrorism Act defines 'terrorist property' as including any resources of a proscribed organisation. Contributing resources or donations to the organisation could now land you up to 14 years imprisonment, transforming what would have been a crowdfunding donation on Monday into 'fundraising for the purposes of terrorism' today. I came to political consciousness as an adult during the 'War on Terror' of the early Noughties. I can all too clearly remember the circular debates about how the concept of terrorism should be defined in law, concerns about ambiguous definitions, government insistence that public safety and security demanded the state and law enforcement agencies should be given more and more unstructured power above and beyond the ordinary criminal law, undiscouraged by concerns about the dangers of draconian enforcement and executive overreach. Last week's decision is guaranteed to revive these debates – but at least in terms of Palestine Action, under the long shadow of the criminal law.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Charles Clarke: ‘The civil liberties of terrorists are a pretty low concern'
'Do I miss politics?' asks Charles Clarke. 'If it was put to me that I could become a minister – I can't envisage that, of course, at 74 – I would consider it. I believe in politics deeply.' The former Labour home secretary has a soft, almost gentle, voice. Leaning on a table in the back garden of a small terraced house in Cambridge he seems every inch a typical grandfather, flanked by plant pots, a busy bird bath and a rose-heavy wooden trellis. It is the hottest day of the year so far and we have slipped through the narrow kitchen to sit outside in the shade. He looks the same as he did in 2005, with that wrap of white whiskers you could strike a match on, back when he was one of Tony Blair's 'big beasts' tackling crime and immigration. Twenty years ago, Clarke was at the Home Office during the worst home-grown terrorist attack in our country's history, when four jihadist suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 other people on the London Underground and a double-decker bus. Clarke co-ordinated the response of the emergency and security services on that terrible day, taking decisions few politicians ever had to face. 'Ever since 9/11, terror had been on the agenda, and we were considering potential threats,' he says. 'It was a constant theme. But there was no particular terror threat on my desk the day before the attacks. 'At around 9am on Thursday July 7, we were sitting in the Cabinet Room for a regular meeting chaired by [deputy PM] John Prescott because the prime minister was in Gleneagles for a G8 summit.' It was cool and overcast for July, but since it was the morning after the announcement that London had won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics, the city was glowing with a joyful – in some cases literal – hangover. 'I was handed a message saying there had been an accident on the London Underground. Then another came in two minutes later that it might be an explosion. I felt deep shock. Everyone was in shock. 'I asked John if we could postpone the Cabinet meeting so I could chair [the emergency committee] Cobra. We needed a detailed situation report. Some ministers had heard there had been eight explosions, but we found out that was because there was smoke coming out from two sides of the Tube tunnels. Andy Hayman [then assistant commissioner of the Met Police], who was the senior police officer, gave us a very accurate account of what was taking place. 'The transport secretary, Alistair Darling, and I discussed closing down the entire public transport system, but we decided not to. It would be too disruptive – plus it would be a victory for the attackers. Large parts of the Tube were already shut down.' 'We didn't know if there were bombers at large' Three bombs detonated on London Underground trains at around 8.50am: at Aldgate and Edgware Road on the Circle line and in the deep tunnel at Russell Square on the Piccadilly line. An hour later, a fourth bomber blew up the upper deck of a number 30 bus in Tavistock Square. 'The principal question was would there be another attack. I had to authorise Operation Kratos, which was the police shoot-to-kill policy. It was not clear for several hours that these had been suicide attacks. We didn't know if there were bombers at large. 'We briefed Tony [Blair] in Scotland, but he wanted to come back to London, which is what I would have done if I'd been in his position.' Memories of the Madrid train bombs in 2004 that killed 193 people haunted the British authorities: in Madrid the explosions were caused by bombs planted by the perpetrators, with further devices found later on the same day. In London, before it became clear that suicide bombers were responsible for the July 7 attacks, officials feared that the bombers might still be at large and preparing further attacks. Given the nature of previous attacks abroad, however, Whitehall had prepared for the worst. 'There were a set of protocols on command structures and who would take the decisions in any given circumstance. I had been involved in war gaming for such situations. The most dramatic of these was to give authorisation for a passenger plane to be shot down if it was doing what had happened on 9/11. Somebody had to decide whether to shoot down a plane if it was about to crash into the Houses of Parliament.' That individual would have been Clarke or Blair, but thankfully the decision was never needed. Aside from the bombers, 52 people of 18 nationalities were killed and around 770 were injured. It was the first Islamist terror attack on British soil. 'I was exhausted as we got towards the end of the day, but the adrenalin was massive. What I kept asking was, 'Have I done the best I possibly can to deal with this?' I was confident we had dealt well with what had happened, but my worry was we hadn't identified a further attack.' Three of the jihadists, Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, and Hasib Hussain, 18, had driven down from Leeds. All were British-born with Pakistani heritage. At Luton, they met the fourth attacker, a Jamaican-born Muslim convert, Germaine Lindsay, 19. Together they took a train to King Cross, and then dispersed into London's public transport network with backpacks filled with home-made hydrogen-peroxide-based explosives. Their identities, methods and motives were revealed in the days that followed, with videos made by Khan and Tanweer claiming they were 'soldiers' retaliating against Western action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and elsewhere. When Tanweer declared 'this is only the beginning', he was half right. 'I've never believed in scapegoating the police' Two weeks later, on July 21, three more jihadists attempted a second wave of attacks on the London Underground and a fourth on another bus, this time the number 26 at Haggerston. 'With each day that passed after the first attacks, it was tempting to think 'Have we avoided more?'' says Clarke. 'So when it came, it was a terrible feeling. The idea that it was coming back was a doom-laden moment.' Incredibly, all four devices failed to detonate, and the would-be bombers went on the run. Although they were eventually caught in dramatic fashion – one police raid being broadcast live on television – the relief that London had been spared further carnage was offset by the tragic shooting of the Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes by police at Stockwell station the day after the failed bombings. He had been mis-identified as Hussain Oman, one of the failed bombers. 'What happened to Jean Charles de Menezes was horrendous, and there was very justified anger from his family. But I never felt – and I don't to this day – that the police were behaving incorrectly. Just as I never felt I was wrong to authorise the shoot-to-kill policy [used by the officers who shot Menezes], because I felt it was my duty. I could be wrong and I can be criticised for it, but I never thought we had done the wrong thing. I've never been in favour of scapegoating the police.' That fortnight was a colossal jolt. It left no doubt in the public's mind – let alone the government's – that Islamist terror could strike at the heart of the nation. Here were small cells of impressionable young British-born men inspired by al-Qaeda and motivated by an anti-Western agenda. In the years since, Britain has endured more Islamist violence, among others: the murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich in 2013; the Westminster Bridge car attack in 2017 that killed six; the London Bridge attack the same year in which eight people were killed by knifemen in a van; the London Bridge stabbing in 2019 that cost two others their lives; and the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess in 2021. But for Clarke, it is the Manchester Arena attack of 2017, in which a suicide bomber killed 22 children and parents at an Ariana Grande concert, which is most emblematic of the poisonous motives behind Islamist terror. 'It was an attack on the way we in the West see our liberty,' he says. 'They want to destroy our society. I can't see any compromise with Islamic terrorism.' Clarke's robust language as he reflects on the horrors of July 7 has a consistency lacking from some current members of his own party, as Labour struggles to cope with those on the Left who are ambivalent about whether Hamas militants are terrorists and question the British authorities' attempts to tackle extremism. 'We've all been deeply affected by July 7. It made me a harder person. [Afterwards] I was very much less tolerant of people who say, 'Give people who think like this a chance'. I don't think I'd go as far to say I have no concern for their civil liberties, but it's a pretty low concern. 'I believe respect and tolerance is very important, and attacks on that come from many directions. Anyone who tries to foment hate has to be confronted very directly. I'm still in favour of the deportation of foreign nationals who promote terrorism.' 'Politics is like a drug' Clarke was head boy at the fee-paying Highgate School in North London, but only 'found' politics while studying mathematics and economics at Cambridge in the late 1970s. 'I was brought up to believe you could and should commit to public service,' he says. His father, Richard Clarke, had been a permanent secretary at the Treasury between 1962-66 and originally came to London from Derbyshire, while his mother, who was also a civil servant, was from Weardale, County Durham: 'We weren't a very Labour family, but we were a public service family.' After completing his stint as president of the Cambridge Student Union in 1977, and a year spent in Cuba for the World Youth Festival, he became a councillor in Hackney in East London. 'I was chair of housing in Hackney,' he says, which by 1981 was facing demands from central government to cap its rates. 'It was a tough time, with people living in real poverty and housing estates that had been ignored and declining.' Following Labour's disastrous defeat in 1983, Clarke worked as a researcher and then chief of staff for its new leader, Neil Kinnock. It was during this period his belief in 'pragmatism with a purpose' began to crystallise. 'Labour came out of deep conflict in the 1980s. There was factional hatred with people who said 'Either you are with us or you are a class traitor'. In 1983 there was a real sense Labour might be finished. Just as the Conservatives face today – they must ask themselves what they stand for. My view was we should be looking to the future. We needed to speak to society as it was in the 1980s, not the 1940s. Pragmatism was seen as a terrible word.' Clarke set up a political consultancy firm after Labour's fourth successive election defeat in 1992, but his beliefs dovetailed with that of the leadership under Blair, who took over in 1994. Clarke was unable to resist seeking his place among the wave of new MPs elected in 1997. 'Politics is like a drug. After 1992 I felt there were so many distasteful and problematic aspects to it. But within a year I started to think about finding a seat. Once you've got the bug, the idea of wanting to change society is a gripping thing.' Even in the oppressive heat, amid the sounds of bumblebees the size of conkers hitting his garden wall, Clarke's sharpness remains impressive. Perhaps it was this that convinced Blair to promote the MP for Norwich South to minister without portfolio in 2001, and then to education secretary in 2002, and finally, at the end of 2004, to one of the great – and most challenging – offices of state. 'I never accepted that the Home Office is a poisoned chalice. There will always be the unexpected.' It was around this time that Clarke came to be seen as a 'bruiser' – and a target for opposition MPs and campaign groups who feared he posed a threat to civil liberties. The Guardian 's cartoonist, Steve Bell, drew him as a rampaging elephant. Clarke's first task was to react to the Law Lords – before they were moved to the new Supreme Court in 2009 – striking down the counter-terror legislation of his predecessor, David Blunkett. The indefinite detention without trial of foreign terror suspects was judged to breach human rights laws at the end of 2004. Clarke set about putting 'control orders' – a range of measures to monitor suspects – in place in response. 'Immigration does not equal crime' In the aftermath of the attacks, Clarke found himself at the centre of a debate over the government's role in protecting the public. In August 2005, the UN's special investigator on torture expressed concerns about the UK's government's intention to return radical Islamic preachers to their countries of origin. Clarke's response at the time was typical of the approach he adopted in the aftermath of the attacks. 'The human rights of those people who were blown up in London on July 7 are, to be quite frank, more important than the human rights of the people who committed those acts.' Fast-forward to this summer, and the issues over which Clarke fought his greatest political battles feel even more pressing. Successive Tory governments have pledged to reduce net immigration and consistently failed to do so. Questions persist about Britain's ability to control its own borders and to deport foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers. 'Immigration does not equal crime,' says Clarke. 'But we should take a much harder line with countries who don't agree to accept returns, and if they don't co-operate, it should be harder for their citizens to get visas and for them to receive overseas aid. 'We need a much more aggressive stance. If those people on the boats know they will be returned to their country of origin if their asylum claim fails, then they are less likely to take that journey. The length of time it takes to process asylum cases attacks public confidence. If we had tougher agreements with countries for returns, then we could circumvent some of the delays caused by the European Convention on Human Rights. I've never been in favour of withdrawing from the ECHR, but it needs reforming.' The focus of any home secretary's job was and remains crime and immigration. Central to these themes in 2005 was the government's desire to introduce ID cards. Clarke was an advocate of the Identity Card Act, introduced in 2006 but not ready to be implemented until 2009. It was scrapped immediately by the Cameron-led coalition, amid claims from the Left and Right alike that it was 'un-British'. 'Theresa May made a massive theatre of literally smashing up the hard disc the data was stored on in 2010, but if the scheme had been kept, we would have had a far greater grip on immigration than we do now,' Clarke says. 'If those people [coming on boats] knew they had to demonstrate their identity in order to get a job, benefits or somewhere to live, we'd be less of a target.' Clarke says the rising popularity of Reform demonstrates the failure of the mainstream parties to grasp the extent of public discontent. 'Reform is entitled to exploit grievances – it's a legitimate tactic. If the establishment fails to make itself worthy of people's support, then it's entitled to be kicked in the a--e. Farage is a talented creator of opinion, but I don't think I've ever heard Reform articulate a clear vision of government. And I think politics is only worthy of respect when it's about putting solutions to move things forward – and Reform has not passed that test, for me, so far.' Last week, Sir Keir Starmer marked the end of his first year in office with a humiliating climbdown over welfare reform. Clarke clearly wants to avoid joining the ranks of Labour figures criticising the Prime Minister, but says, diplomatically: 'This Labour Government has big difficulties with its communications. I think Keir Starmer has a vision, but he hasn't developed a narrative of how he hopes to put that into effect.' Clarke is, however, conscious that the coming years might be hugely consequential for democracy as we know it. 'If people lose confidence in politicians, they will lose confidence in the whole of politics,' he says. For someone described as a 'bruiser', Clarke is not particularly tall or broad, but his presence remains ever-so slightly intimidating. It's not hard to imagine how he earned his reputation. He enjoys his portfolio life – he's been a visiting lecturer at Lancaster and East Anglia universities, an author, a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society and a supporter of Norwich City, though he doesn't go to Carrow Road as often as he did when he was the local MP. Clarke declares himself a happy grandfather, with one son and his granddaughter in Southend, and his other son nearby in Cambridge. In 1984 he married Carol Pearson, who he met when she was working in the House of Commons. His wife has been influential in perhaps the most important aspect of his public life since leaving Parliament: a resolve to promote the values of what we once breezily called the 'West', stiffened by the experiences of her Estonian family. 'I have deep links with Estonia. My wife's grandfather, August Maramaa, was mayor of a town called Viljandi. We have a great sense of pride in the family.' Clarke set up a Baltics geopolitics programme at Cambridge University in 2021, and it's ever more relevant since Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine the following year, with countries once part of the Soviet Union waiting anxiously to see what Russia does next in regions it considers to be in its 'sphere of influence'. It's not impossible to imagine Clarke returning to the political front line at a time when Britain faces domestic and overseas threats and the front benches lack figures with his eloquence and depth. He is certainly the kind of individual you would want in a crisis, such as an attack by those who do not simply want to kill but to terrorise, as we saw 20 years ago. 'I felt proud of the resilience, warmth and positivity of people that we saw after the attacks,' he says. 'That is the strength of our country and I hate attempts to undermine it.'
Rhyl Journal
8 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Arrests made at protest in support of banned Palestine Action
The Metropolitan Police posted on X on Saturday afternoon saying officers are responding to the protest in Parliament Square and making arrests. Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. Officers are responding to a protest in support of Palestine Action in Parliament Square. The group is now proscribed and expressing support for them is a criminal offence. Arrests are being made. Further updates will be shared here. — Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) July 5, 2025 The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is 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 of damage. The force posted on X saying: 'Officers are responding to a protest in support of Palestine Action in Parliament Square. 'The group is now proscribed and expressing support for them is a criminal offence. 'Arrests are being made. 'Further updates will be shared here.' A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction. But we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' Leslie Tate, 76, a Green councillor from Hertfordshire, said: 'Palestine Action are not a violent organisation, and the proscription is wrong. 'You do know, of course, that they were proscribed by Parliament with two other groups involved – all three at once – so that was a trick to make sure the Bill went through. 'The evidence from their actions that they've taken from the start of Palestine Action is that they all have been non-violent. 'This protest is necessary to defend our democracy, and this is the creeping edge of totalitarianism, frankly. 'We thought they (the police) would probably take pictures of people. 'It's the obvious thing to do, to photograph them, then they have their identity, rather than make arrests.' Metropolitan Police circled around dozens of protesters standing quietly beneath the statue of Mahatma Gandhi, with placards that said: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action'. Occasional chants of 'free Palestine' broke out from the surrounding onlookers, and some criticised the police attending. The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. An elderly woman in a clerical collar, who was sat in a camp chair with one of the placards at her feet, appeared to be taken away by officers. Another person was seen lying on the floor in handcuffs as police gathered over her. A woman seen lying on the floor in handcuffs was carried away in the air by officers and put in a police van. While suspended and flanked by a large group of police, she said calmly: 'Free Palestine, stop the genocide, I oppose genocide, I support the rights of the Palestinian people, I support freedom of speech, I support freedom of assembly.' A mass of people crowded around to film the scene. Officers placed her in the vehicle parked on the road behind the square before returning to the Mahatma Gandhi statue, where almost no protesters remained. Chants of 'shame' broke out, directed at the police, and officers moved behind the Gandhi statue. Most of the police dispersed at around 2.10pm. 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 at Brize Norton. 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.
