Human rights group loses challenge over jet part exports amid Gaza conflict
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.
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 High Court ruling
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.
Defence Secretary John Healey had said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' (PA)
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.
Demonstrators outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London during an earlier hearing (PA)
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
The Guardian
34 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
The Sun
38 minutes ago
- The Sun
Airbnb owner forced to tear down 40ft-high ‘monstrous prison camp watchtower' after furious neighbours complained
AN Airbnb owner has been ordered to tear down a massive 40ft-high "prison-camp watchtower" after furious neighbours complained. The "monstrous" structure was built at the £5,000-a-week holiday let in Rhos-on-Sea, North Wales, without planning permission. 2 2 And fuming locals nearby say the eyesore addition is disturbing their day-to-day lives in a seaside town. Planning permission for the towering "garden room" was turned down last year. And neighbours are celebrating after another bid has now also been rejected by officials who say the tower must be removed. Nearby neighbour Nick Whitmore, 35, who lives with his partner and three young children said their "dream home" had been marred by the platform and cabin. Nick said: "It's advertised on Airbnb year-round, bringing noise, light pollution, and worse. "The impact on my partner, our three children, and our neighbours is horrendous. "The structure dominates our house and garden, as well as our neighbours'. It looks into my daughter's bedroom. He added: "We are a local, hard-working family with three children under the age of 10. "My partner and I worked very, very hard to buy our dream home, just up the road from the children's school, various public parks, with a bedroom for each of our children, and a nice garden for them to enjoy. "This has now been taken away from us as we back onto a busy Airbnb and, since Jan 2024, a building site." The holiday let was purchased by a Sheffield-based property owner in December 2023. Neighbours reported the structure to the council and JAM Domestic Properties Ltd submitted a planning application - which was refused. The owners had described the 'breathtaking' £700,000 four-bedroom property as 'the epitome of luxury '. Nick said: "We alerted Conwy council who asked the company to stop work. "They did, and submitted a retrospective planning application, which was refused in June 2024 after numerous neighbour objections. "With no appeal by the 16 December 2024 deadline, we thought the council would follow through and move to enforce their own refusal. "We assumed relief was near. Instead, two weeks ago, earlier in March 2025, the owner submitted a near-identical planning application. "We've now endured over 15 months of this situation, with Conwy sitting on their hands while local families and residents suffer daily." Families living next-door are furious at the13m high 'concrete plateau' giving clear views into their properties and blighting their lives. Work on the tower - which would provide panoramic views of the village and neighbouring Penrhyn Bay - began last year, only to be paused when a planning application was turned down. The holiday rental - called Gardd y Llys - is a contemporary property in one of the most upmarket residential areas of Rhos-on-Sea. 'OVERBEARING' Neighbours Stephen and Hazel Walburn also wrote a letter of objection to the council. "The cabin is 13m above our main living area and certainly feels to us to be out of character and overbearing," they wrote. "Its scale and appearance are unlike other garden buildings in the area. It fails to enhance the local environment, commanding attention not unlike a prison camp watchtower." They added: "It dominates the roofscape and is alien and incongruous." Conwy council said: "An enforcement notice has been served which requires the removal of the structure." The notice was served on 17 June and the developer has been given 10 weeks from that date to launch an appeal. The application by JAM Domestic Properties read: "Views from the raised platform into neighbouring properties were recognised as being available from the initial planning consent. "The proposed development is not considered to lead to an acceptable increase to this and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on privacy or residential amenity to neighbouring properties, and therefore would be acceptable on this basis." A Conwy Council spokeswoman previously said: "Planning permission was granted in 2016 for a smaller garden structure on this site. "In February 2024, it was brought to our attention that a larger outbuilding was being constructed. "Following an investigation by the planning enforcement officer, the owners agreed to cease work and to submit a planning application to regularise the work.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Major blow for savers as Reeves is set to slash tax-free Isa allowance
Savers are set to lose a chunk of their tax-free cash individual savings account allowance as the Treasury prepares to take an axe to the £20,000 limit. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to cave into lobbying by City firms in two weeks' time and announce a cut to the allowance in her Mansion House speech on July 15, Government officials have said. Individuals can currently put £20,000 a year into tax-free Isas and can choose to split the limit how they like between cash accounts and investments. But plans to set a lower limit for cash Isas could be announced later this month, according to the Financial Times. Some 12.4 million adults hold cash accounts to shield their nest egg from the taxman. But the Treasury has been lobbied by investment firms to curtail the cash Isa tax break and prioritise investments, which will in turn boost their coffers. Trading platform IG has called for the cash wrapper to be 'scrapped altogether.' In May Ms Reeves confirmed the overall £20,000 limit would remain in place. But she stopped short of stating the amount that can be kept in cash will also stay at this level. The Treasury repeated this when approached for comment. Ms Reeves said: 'It's really important that we support people to save, to achieve their aspirations. 'I'm not going to reduce the £20,000 Isa limit but I do want people to get better returns on their savings, whether that's in a pension or in their day-to-day savings.' The Government wants to reform the Isa system to encourage more people to plough money into the stock market to bolster the UK's lacklustre retail investing culture. It is hoped the move will spark more investment into London-listed stocks, which will support the Government's growth agenda. Insiders say the Treasury previously discussed cutting the cash Isa allowance to as low as £5,000 but it is understood they are still considering the threshold. The Building Societies Association warned earlier this year that savers rely on the tax wrappers to achieve their savings goals but also claimed any curtailment could lead to a mortgage shortage and a hike to borrowing costs. In response to the Mail's Hands Off Our Cash Isa campaign, many readers said they shouldn't be penalised for preferring safe cash savings over risky stock holdings. The Exchequer will rake more money into its coffers if savers breach their Personal Savings Allowance rather than investing.
