High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20.
On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.
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, and are due to face trial in early 2027.
Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend.
At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'.
He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
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.
Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'.
He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'.
At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Why Does Anyone Think Trump Will Uphold His End of a Bargain With Columbia?
In 1672, Charles II unilaterally suspended repayment of 1.2 million pounds to London's private bankers. Having run up this debt, and unable to finance a flotilla of ships to fight the Dutch, Charles became neither the first nor the last absolute monarch to break his word. James II, his sibling successor, went further, claiming royal prerogative to bypass laws and purge Protestant judges, generals and functionaries. The solemn oaths he made at his coronation, to respect Parliament and the Church of England, wound up being worth not very much. James ruled for less than four years, deserting after the Glorious Revolution began the era of parliamentary supremacy. Parliament would approve only those loans it would be willing to pay back with taxes, enabling deals with creditors now willing to lend. By restraining the monarch's power, it enabled the crown to make deals it couldn't otherwise get. In economic history, we teach the 1688 creation of parliamentary supremacy as a solution to what economists call 'commitment problems.' In the absence of a third party sufficiently strong to make sure all sides stick to their promises, the powerful can renege on the powerless. The powerless, seeing this, wisely choose to not contract with the powerful. Absolutist rulers are victims of their own lack of restraints; a sovereign who is too powerful cannot get inexpensive credit, because nothing stops the ruler from defaulting on any bond. President Trump, by smashing checks on his authority, has wound up undermining his own ability to make credible deals, including the one just reached with Columbia University, where I teach. The entities that have been striking deals with Mr. Trump, my own employer included, have not learned the lessons of the Glorious Revolution. Trade negotiators from longtime partner countries, government contractors, law firms, federal employees, permanent residents, the Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, even the Transportation Security Administration labor union are all experiencing contractual vertigo, finding out that the administration will not honor previous agreements. The first Trump administration renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement to get the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, but Mr. Trump has imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada in violation of even that agreement. Parties thinking they can wheedle their way into a bargain with a capricious administration are bringing intuitions from the world of private deals, backstopped by the rule of law, into the very different realm of political bargains with absolutism-adjacent executive branches. I understand the desire for a deal. My colleagues and I have eagerly clicked on every news story hinting that Columbia's leaders might have secured the hundreds of millions of dollars the Trump administration has frozen or cut. Our community has borne devastating cuts, with researchers and administrative staff members laid off and participants in medical research losing access to treatment midcourse. On top of that, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained a number of our students, and there have been endless leaks, doxxing attacks, campus lockdowns and computer hacks. All of this manifests as a never-ending stream of anxiety — financial, physical, moral — that narrows whatever intellectual horizons the research university is supposed to foster. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Essex disorder was ‘signal flare' of rising unrest and cracks in police forces
Disorder in Essex was a 'signal flare' of rising unrest and exposes cracks in police forces across the country, the head of a police body said. There has been a series of demonstrations outside the Bell Hotel in Epping since an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault this month. Chairwoman of the Police Federation, Tiff Lynch, wrote in The Telegraph that the disorder was 'not just a troubling one-off'. Ms Lynch went on: 'It was a signal flare. A reminder of how little it takes for tensions to erupt and how ill-prepared we remain to deal with it.' She said that local commanders across the country are forced to choose between 'keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps'. Ms Lynch added: 'A summer of further unrest is not inevitable. But it becomes far more likely if we once again fail to prepare.' Essex Police has issued a dispersal order in Epping which will be in place from 2pm on Thursday until 8am on Friday, and covers an area including the town centre and transport hubs and networks such as the tube station. The order gives officers the power to direct anyone suspected of committing anti-social behaviour, or planning to do so, to leave the area or face arrest. It comes after Nigel Farage called for Essex Police Chief Constable Ben-Julian Harrington to resign. The Reform UK leader said, alongside footage shared online on Wednesday: 'This video proves @EssexPoliceUK transported left-wing protesters to the Bell Hotel in Epping.' Mr Harrington told a press conference on Wednesday that accusations officers drove people to the protest are 'not true'. Conservative MP for Epping Forest Neil Hudson, asked about Mr Farage's comments, told Sky News that what some politicians are saying 'is not correct'. He added: 'Essex Police are putting themselves in harm's way to keep people safe and it's very important that we have the facts, and we have no misinformation. 'But I'm categorical, I am fully in support of Essex Police and I'm very grateful for what they're doing.' The MP urged the Government to 'get a grip on this issue' and close the hotel immediately. The protests came after an asylum seeker, 38-year-old Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, was charged with sexual assault after allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl. He denied the charges when he appeared at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court last week and he is due to stand trial in August. Mr Harrington said that officers had made 10 arrests following the protests. The force said on Tuesday that four men have been charged with violent disorder and a fifth man charged with failing to remove a face covering when directed. Political activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said on his X account on July 20 that he was 'coming to Epping next Sunday … and bringing thousands more with me'. Protesters gathered outside a hotel believed to be housing asylum seekers in Diss, Norfolk, earlier in the week. There was also a demonstration outside the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf on Wednesday. The site is reportedly to be used to offer temporary accommodation for asylum seekers.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Starmer meeting Indian PM ‘golden' chance to help detained Briton
The brother of a British man who has been detained overseas since 2017 has said he is putting his faith in the Prime Minister ahead of a meeting between Sir Keir Starmer and the Indian Prime Minister. Talks between Sir Keir and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India are seen as being a 'unique opportunity' to seek a resolution to the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. Mr Johal, a Sikh activist from Dumbarton near Glasgow, was arrested while in India for his wedding, and has been held ever since – despite having been cleared of one of the cases against him earlier this year. But he still faces charges at a federal level, which his supporters – who claim an initial confession he made was as a result of torture – fear could take years to come to a conclusion. However, campaigners at Reprieve, who have been working to free Mr Johal, say the talks between the UK and Indian leaders could be a 'rare chance to make progress' in the case. The Indian prime minister is visiting London to sign a landmark, free trade agreement between his country and the UK. And Gurpreet Singh Johal, said: 'I'm putting my faith in the Prime Minister to get this done and bring Jagtar home.' He said Sir Keir had 'recognised that Jagtar is arbitrarily detained' and that Foreign Secretary David Lammy had twice told him that 'resolving the case is a priority for this Government'. Leaving for UK, a country with which our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership has achieved significant momentum in the last few years. I look forward to my talks with PM Keir Starmer and my meeting with His Majesty King Charles III. @Keir_Starmer @RoyalFamily… — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) July 23, 2025 Mr Johal said: 'That means it should be high on the agenda when the prime ministers meet. 'Over the last eight years, I've grown very tired of fine words and weak excuses for a lack of action, while my brother grows old in prison. 'The time is now – it would be devastating if the Prime Minister lets this golden opportunity slip away.' Dan Dolan, deputy executive director of Reprieve, said returning Mr Johal to the UK should be a priority for Sir Keir when he has talks with his Indian counterpart on Thursday. Mr Dolan said: 'Jagtar has been found not guilty of the allegations against him, and it should be a priority for Keir Starmer to secure his release and return to Britain. 'Trying him again for the same crime, on the same evidence, is prohibited in India's constitution and in international law. 'This is a clear cut case of double jeopardy and it is in everyone's interests to see it resolved. 'This week's talks are a rare chance to make progress at the very highest level.'
