Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
A Palestinian human rights organisation has lost a High Court challenge over the Government's decision to continue exporting parts of fighter jets to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza.
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'.
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
Rhyl Journal
23 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
MPs back Government bid to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals
Security minister Dan Jarvis described 'keeping our country safe' as an 'awesome task' as he called on MPs to support the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill. If the proposal clears Parliament, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. Mr Jarvis told the Commons: 'Of all the duties of Government, none matters more than keeping our country safe. 'It is an awesome task, and one to which we attach the utmost significance as this House and the public would expect. For people to flourish they must have confidence that they are safe as they go about their lives. 'For a society to excel, its values must be protected from harm and its laws upheld.' The minister later said: 'This Bill will protect the UK from people who pose a threat to our national security by preventing those who've been deprived of British citizenship and are overseas from returning until all appeals have been determined.' He added that where the Home Office is pursuing a person through the appeals process, the alleged extremist would be unable to renounce any other nationalities they might have until the Government runs out of road. Under existing laws, a person who wins an appeal could be released from immigration detention or returned to the UK while the Home Office considers further action. Mr Jarvis warned alleged extremists can renounce other nationalities and put 'themselves in a position whereby a deprivation order would render them stateless', limiting the UK Government's powers. He has received support from the Conservative frontbench, when Katie Lam said from the despatch box: 'Allowing potentially dangerous individuals to retain their citizenship while appeals are ongoing is absurd. 'This is not a power exercised lightly by any government, and the idea that dangerous people might escape accountability by exploiting procedure is frightening.' But Conservative former Home Office minister Kit Malthouse warned that the Bill appeared to 'breach a fundamental tenet', by turning the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head. Mr Malthouse said: 'If I'm accused of a crime and I am found innocent, and the prosecutors decide to appeal my conviction, I remain innocent – until that appeal is heard and decided against me. 'And if it's appealed beyond that, I remain innocent then still.' Turning to the wider deprivation of citizenship orders, which saw an average of 12 people a year lose their rights to a British passport on the grounds it was 'conducive to the public good' between 2018 and 2023, Mr Malthouse told MPs the system had 'created two classes of citizen in this country'. Shamima Begum, who travelled aged 15 from Bethnal Green, London, to territory held by the so-called Islamic State group a decade ago, is a well known example of the state's use of its powers. She was 'married off' to an IS fighter and was stripped of her British citizenship in February 2019. Mr Malthouse said he was a 'freeborn Englishman of two English parents going back I don't know how many years' with 'no claim on any other citizenship anywhere else'. He continued: 'It is my absolute, undeniable, unequivocal right to have citizenship in this country and it cannot be removed from me by any means whatsoever. 'That is not true of my children – I'm married to a Canadian citizen. They have a claim on Canadian citizenship. If the Home Secretary so decides, they can have their citizenship removed. 'That is true of every Jewish citizen of the United Kingdom who has a right to citizenship in Israel. There will be millions of British people of south Asian origin who feel that they have a second-class citizenship. 'This law only applies to certain of our citizens.' Bell Ribeiro-Addy said: 'I do not believe that citizenship is a privilege. I actually believe that it's a right.' The Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I want to understand why if somebody was such a huge threat to this country, we could not deal with them under other pieces of legislation.' She warned of a 'sense of nervousness amongst many communities when any legislation that touches and concerns citizenship is brought to this House', and said orders 'disproportionately' affect 'people of colour, or British-born or long-settled individuals whose heritage or ancestral links are outside of Europe'. Backing the Bill, Labour MP for Makerfield Josh Simons said that 'high streets full of vape shops, dog muck and smashed glass matter so much' as a 'visible and constant reminder that others seem not to feel they belong'. He described citizenship as 'belonging on a bigger scale – a larger us' and called for 'a modern citizenship regime – reform the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and judicial review, establish digital ID or, for that matter, radically reform the British state'. Having backed the Bill at second reading, MPs will further scrutinise it in the Commons at a later date. The Bill does not change the reasons why a person could be deprived of their British status, nor their rights to an appeal.
Rhyl Journal
23 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Government chatbot set to help public deal with bureaucracy
The chatbot is expected to become part of the new app, which launches on Tuesday. The initial 'public beta' version, which is still being worked on, is intended to allow users to access information and support without having to search the internet each time. But ministers expect to add new features, including a chatbot due later this year that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said would 'help people get answers to niche questions more quickly'. Other functions, including applying for benefits, will be added later. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said the new app 'shows for the first time how this Government is overhauling taxpayer-funded services'. He said: 'By putting public services in your pocket, we will do away with clunky paper forms and hours spent on hold, so you can immediately get the information you need and continue on with the rest of your day.' Since coming to power, ministers have pushed for government departments to make greater use of technology, with Sir Keir Starmer calling on his Cabinet to incorporate AI into their departments in a major speech at the start of the year. Describing Tuesday's launch as 'just the start', Mr Kyle added that the future AI chatbot would provide 'a reliable answer immediately' to questions about government services. He said the app would also provide 'personal notifications' to remind people when their MOT was due or when to register to vote. The Government is also expected to introduce a new online 'wallet' later in the year that will include digital versions of official documents, starting with the veterans' card and including a pilot for a digital drivers licence.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK court upholds Cayman Islands law legalising same-sex partnerships
A court in London has upheld a Cayman Islands law legalising same-sex civil partnerships, in a move that campaigners say could turn the tide for other British overseas territories battling for LGBTQ+ rights. On Monday, the privy council, the final court of appeal for the British overseas territory, rejected an appeal that had argued the Caribbean island's governor had no right to enact the bill, after lawmakers had rejected similar legislation. Leonardo Raznovich, acting president for the LGBTQ+ human rights organisation, Colours Caribbean, described the outcome of the long-running legal battle a 'victory for all'. The change in the law came in 2020 following a landmark court case brought by a lesbian couple – Caymanian lawyer Chantelle Day and her partner Vickie Bodden Bush, a nurse – after they were refused permission to marry. Day said the decision was a 'big relief'. 'It's an absolute relief that us and other couples in the Caymans now have the certainty that the legal framework that we all relied on for recognition of our relationships won't be pulled from underneath us and that the constitution works the way it's intended to,' she said. When the couple made their original case, the Cayman Islands' courts ultimately ruled that the right to marry extended only to opposite-sex couples, but that same-sex couples were entitled to legal protection 'which is functionally equivalent to marriage'. A bill was brought to parliament to put that protection into law, but lawmakers rejected it in July 2020 by nine votes to eight. Two months later, the then-governor, Martyn Roper, enacted the Civil Partnership Law, allowing same-sex civil partnerships, saying the action had to be taken to uphold human rights. Kattina Anglin, a lawyer based in the Cayman Islands, argued that Roper did not have the power to introduce the law under the Cayman Islands' constitution. But her case was rejected by the islands' courts and her final appeal was dismissed by the privy council. Raznovich said the decision could have implications for ongoing litigation in other British overseas territories, such as Turks and Caicos, and the British Virgin Islands. But he was less confident about the impact on cases involving independent Caribbean countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, which still have colonial era laws that criminalise consensual anal sex and where same-sex marriages and civil partnerships are prohibited. In 2018, a high court judgment repealed Trinidad and Tobago's so-called 'buggery law', but in April the country's supreme court upheld a government appeal against the ruling and recriminalised the act, forcing campaigners to take their case to the privy council. Controversial 'savings clauses', which typically were created when countries gained their independence, and were designed to preserve colonial laws unless they are changed by parliament, complicates the situation in Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean countries. Anglin told the Guardian she would provide a response to the decision on Thursday when she has had the time to fully review the judgment and meet with her legal team. Reuters contributed reporting
