Palestine Action loses legal challenge to block terror ban
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.
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.
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.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
7 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
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.'
Rhyl Journal
21 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Some consequences of Palestine Action ban ‘overstated', says High Court judge
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. Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to grant the temporary block, finding there was a 'strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. Lawyers for Palestine Action will now make a last-minute bid at the Court of Appeal to challenge this decision, as the ban is expected to come into force at midnight. 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' if the temporary block was refused, but a later challenge against the ban succeeded. 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: 'It follows that it is hyperbole to talk of the claimant or others being 'gagged' in this respect, as the claimant has alleged. 'They could not incur criminal liability based on their past association with a group which was not proscribed at the time. '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 judge later said that if people choose to continue to express support for Palestine Action post-proscription, they may face criminal consequences, adding: 'This, however, is the intended effect of the order. It is how it achieves its aim of disrupting the activities of the proscribed organisation.' The proposal to ban the group 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 the High Court 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 in the wider legal challenge, due around July 21. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the banning of the group, adding it could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Following the High Court's decision on Friday, Ms Ammori said: '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.'
Rhyl Journal
21 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
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. 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.'
