Judgment due in Palestine Action court bid for temporary block on terror ban
The move is to come into force at midnight after being 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.
The Home Office is opposing bids to delay the ban from becoming law, and the potential launch of a legal challenge against the decision.
Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London (Lucy North/PA)
At the end of a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said he 'realistically' planned to give his decision after 5.30pm.
Lawyers for Ms Ammori said that if the temporary block was not granted, a bid to appeal against that decision could be made on Friday evening.
During the hearing, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the London court that this would be the first time a 'direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists'.
He added 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'.
Quoting Ms Ammori, the barrister said that the group had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all' and that its goal 'is to put ourselves in the way of the military machine'.
He continued: 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.'
The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription.
Mr Husain later said that to proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary 'has got to believe that the organisation is concerned in terrorism'.
Demonstrators banged drums outside the court (Lucy North/PA)
Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court 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'.
The barrister 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.
The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying 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
Powys County Times
4 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
High Court judge refuses to temporarily block Palestine Action terror ban
Palestine Action is set to be banned after a High Court judge refused a bid to temporarily block it from being designated as a terror group. 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. Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.' In a 26-page judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that 'some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated'. He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' 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.
Powys County Times
4 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Palestine Action to make Court of Appeal bid at evening hearing over terror ban
Palestine Action will head to the Court of Appeal hours before a ban against it is due to come into force, to challenge a High Court judge's refusal to temporarily block it from being designated as a terror group. 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 was to come into force at midnight after High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused Ms Ammori's bid for a temporary block. But lawyers on behalf of the group will now bring their case to the Court of Appeal in a bid to challenge the decision at a hearing due to begin at 8pm on Friday. At a short, urgent preliminary appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr asked Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori: 'If this matter is going ahead, you need a decision from us by then, do you?' Mr Husain replied: 'Indeed.' Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said the hearing would last an hour, refusing a bid to extend it to 90 minutes. She said: 'We're less than five hours away, we've got to make our minds up on what we've got.' The head of the judiciary in England and Wales added: 'Both sides, if there was any prospect of an appeal, ought to have had all of these matters well in hand, if you were going to come to the Court of Appeal and ask for a decision by midnight. 'We are here now. We will do our best.' 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.' Shortly after the decision was handed down, Ms Ammori said that she would be 'seeking an urgent appeal to try to prevent a dystopian nightmare of the Government's making'. She added: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.'
Western Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
Earlier on Friday 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. 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.'
