Palestine Action terror ban too heavy-handed, former Supreme Court judge warns Starmer

Independent

a day ago

The terror law that saw hundreds arrested for supporting Palestine Action is 'not consistent with basic rights to free speech' and should be changed, a former Supreme court judge has warned.
Writing for the Independent, Lord Sumption said the Terror Act's definition of what amounts to support for a proscribed organisation is 'far too wide'.
He warned that one of the criteria – wearing, carrying or displaying something that supports the group – goes too far and should be rowed back to avoid the more than 500 people arrested at Saturday's protest against the group's ban under terror laws from being criminalised.
Urging the government to amend the Act, he said, 'merely indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offence'.
He also suggested that many of the more than 500 people arrested over the weekend, nearly half of whom are over the age of 60, should not be prosecuted, saying there was a 'simple solution' for the prosecuting authorities.
'The director of prosecution's consent is required for any prosecution of those who have been arrested. Where a demonstrator acted peacefully, he would be wise not to authorise a prosecution.'
But he said that 'in the longer term' the 'right course would be to amend the Terrorism Act so as to redefine in a more sensible way the offence of supporting a proscribed organisation'.
Sir Keir Starmer is facing a furious backlash against the arrests and has been warned he is making a mistake of 'poll tax proportions'.
Politicians from across the political divide have warned of an excessive use of counterterrorism powers that were riding roughshod over the right to peaceful protest.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Sunday that 532 arrests were made, 522 for displaying an item in support of a proscribed organisation at the march in central London.
Civil liberties groups, including Amnesty and Liberty, said the arrests were 'disproportionate to the point of absurdity' and that the government's terrorism laws were a threat to freedom of expression.
Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti told The Independent the 'proscription of Palestine Action is in danger of becoming a mistake of poll tax proportions' – a reference to Margaret Thatcher's unpopular policy that triggered civil disobedience and riots.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the police but suggested those who were arrested may not 'know the full nature of this organisation'.
Her comment led to calls for the authorities to be more 'clear-cut' about why they proscribed Palestine Action last month.
The group hit the headlines earlier this year when four members were accused of causing around £7m worth of damage to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.
After the arrests, Downing Street defended the move to ban the group, saying it was 'violent', had committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, and that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre had found the organisation had carried out three separate acts of terrorism.
But former Conservative cabinet minister Sir David Davis told The Independent the arrests were an 'excessive use of counterterrorism law', adding 'they've gone over the top'.
He said: 'We've not really been given any evidence for the reasoning behind proscribing Palestine Action. I mean, they broke in and painted an aircraft, they did not set bombs or anything. So that's the first question. What was the criteria? And then secondly, should you be arresting lots of people because they support a particular side and put up a banner?'
He added: 'The authorities should be more clear cut about why they have proscribed Palestine Action.'
Meanwhile, veteran backbencher Diane Abbott said the government is in danger of making itself look 'both draconian and foolish'.
And former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain described the mass arrests as 'madness' and said Palestine Action was not 'equivalent to real terrorist groups like al-Qaeda or Islamic State [which is] why I voted against its ban'.