Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage.
Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA)
In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries.
They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.'
The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight.
Earlier that day 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.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'.
MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday.
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.
They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block.
Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight.
The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid.
Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday (Lucy North/PA)
In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law.
'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.'
They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.'
In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge 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, told the Court of Appeal 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.'
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'.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why we will all share in the Chancellor's tears
Rather, I feel drawn to the aftermath. The forced smile, the reassurance aimed at markets. That plus the concession that there is a cost associated with the Commons retreat – 'and that will be reflected in the budget'. Read More: A throwaway phrase – but one rich with intent. In the autumn we will all witness spending curbs – or tax increases. Or both. As a consequence of this week's events. But first those tears. We should all extend sympathy to a fellow being in evident distress. Mostly, the House would assuredly do that, within limits. In the Commons, there is a commonality of feeling which straddles partisan division. There are more connections and friendships across the aisles than would be thought from the bogus sound and fury of what passes for Parliamentary discourse. The role of MP can be a relatively lonely one. A tribune of the people, yet subject to the whims and discontent of the electorate. The only ones who truly understand the stresses and strains of the job are other MPs. Hence the fellow feeling. And those limits? On the subject of the Chancellor's discomfiture, I chanced to be on the wireless broadcasting to an astonished nation alongside Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP. Christine Jardine (Image: PA) She said that she had witnessed the tears – and had felt like crossing the chamber to offer a comforting hug to Rachel Reeves. However, she stayed in her place. Aware, she said, that protocol in the Commons would frown upon such a fracture of party lines. I am sure that is right. There are no rules, as such, governing such matters. However, being the Commons, there is accumulated custom and practice. Which solemnly suggests that opposing parties should stay two sword lengths apart. But what of the Chancellor's own side? Should they not have offered more assistance? How about the Prime Minister? He explained later that he had not noticed his chum's distress. Prime Minister's Questions, he averred, is 'pretty wired' – and he was focused on coping with that. Even accepting that, his response was limp. He was explicitly challenged by the Leader of the Opposition to defend the Chancellor. His answer was to list the collective successes of the government, noting that Ms Reeves had led on each and concluding: 'We are grateful to her for it.' Read More: Was that it? The best he could do? 'Grateful to her' sounds like the sort of phrase accompanied by a carriage clock and a gentle shove out the door. But no. Sir Keir plainly realised he had fallen short, albeit inadvertently. In subsequent comments, including at a shared appearance, he went out of his way to stress that she was a star who would light up 11 Downing Street for many years to come. Which was apparently designed to placate the markets. Sensible folk, dealing with the trials of everyday life, might well advise flaky traders to get real and avoid being spooked so readily. But, still, I understand. These are deeply troubled times, the age of anxiety. The markets required reassurance not so much about an individual as about the firm fiscal rules that the incumbent Chancellor has promised to observe. To avoid the problem, should the Chancellor have stayed away from the Commons, aware that she was upset? But that would only have prompted questions about her absence. As she said herself, her place is by the PM's side. Especially when the government's entire fiscal strategy is under strain. The cuts to disability benefits were designed to save £5bn by the end of the current term. That £5bn had been factored into Treasury sums – and must now be found elsewhere. This cannot be resolved by a day-late smile from the Chancellor and a comforting hug from the PM. This is deeply, deeply challenging. Plus there is another factor. The Commons may assist a member in evident distress. But the House also develops a collective, Darwinian momentum of its own when it detects weakness. On the government benches, the Prime Minister and Chancellor are now palpably weakened. Not by a few stifled tears or the PM's innocent neglect. But by the complete, chaotic collapse of a core policy, that of curbing disability benefits. Yes, it will be said that reform has survived to some degree. That the objective of encouraging disabled people into work remains. But the Labour back benches have risen and rejected the cuts to welfare benefits. They have said no, firmly, to the PM and the Chancellor. It is all too easy for such rebellion to become habitual. For the discontent to extend to any proposed spending cuts. Or to tax hikes, if they strain credulity. As I also noted on the wireless, the problem for the PM is that the entire approach to cutting disability benefits ran contrary to Labour instincts – which he appeared either to lack or to disregard. Further, the Chancellor had already made herself unpopular with the troops by the assertive stand she took on the winter fuel payment. Yes, I understand, she was, once more, playing to those powerful markets. For a Labour Minister, it was a deliberately counter-intuitive attempt to stress her determination to curb the spending package, to stand firm. But it left Labour backbenchers unhappy and sullen. The welfare reforms, on top of that, proved to be a step too far. Way too far. It will now be decidedly difficult for the PM and Chancellor to retrench. To regain the solid support of their MPs while clutching the grail of market confidence. Difficult but not impossible. Political tears are generally reserved for moments of high emotion – or departure. Moments of turmoil. Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. Vaughan Gething fearing an upcoming confidence motion as Welsh FM – which he duly lost. Weep no more. Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves now need to project certainty and smiling reassurance. If they can. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
How Scottish schools are stalling over single-sex toilets despite Supreme Court ruling
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It seems there is a large swathe of Scottish civil society that is unable, or unwilling, to accept that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. It is the final court of appeal for civil cases in the UK and its word is the law. The judgment on sex and gender, passed down nearly three months ago on April 16, could not be clearer – the terms 'man', 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act refer to biological sex. Every organisation in Britain, from devolved governments to schools, was advised to revisit their equalities policies in light of the judgment, but it seems the Church of Scotland, and now Edinburgh City Council, know better. Earlier this week, the Kirk had to admit it was wrong to insist that biological men could still share female lavatories with girls, based on the partisan and erroneous advice of an LGBT charity and a London-based lawyer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A concerned mother from Fife had complained that her 11-year-old daughter had to share the female toilets at a church-run community centre with a biological male, only to be told by church officials that it was 'lawful and often appropriate' for 'women-only spaces to include trans women'. On Monday night, the church backtracked, saying it 'supported the right' of women and girls to access single-sex spaces, and suggested trans people should be provided with gender-neutral facilities. Members of For Women Scotland celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that the word 'woman' the 2010 Equality Act refers to a biological woman (Picture: Lucy North) | PA 'Widespread misinformation' On Tuesday, the Prime Minister no less, took time away from his troubles to say that he not only accepted the Supreme Court's ruling, he welcomed it, and he insisted that all public bodies must comply with it. 'All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible,' he said. Dr Lesley Sawers, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), followed up with a warning to the Scottish Government and other public service providers that they had a responsibility to ensure compliance with equalities law and that the current 'climate of uncertainty and widespread misinformation serves nobody'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And yet teenage girls in at least one of Edinburgh's secondary schools are still being forced to share toilet facilities with their male peers. Pupils at James Gillespie's High School in Marchmont have to share a mixed-sex toilet block, with cubicles arranged facing each other in an open plan space. Parents tell of their daughters waiting until they get home before using the bathroom to avoid the embarrassment of sharing an intimate space with boys. A promise made last year by the headteacher to build privacy walls to separate the toilets has yet to be fulfilled. In his latest report to the school's parent council, dated June 4, he agreed that 'more work needs to be done regarding toilets' but insisted it will take a 'whole school approach to try and minimise the challenges we have in these areas'. He added: 'We are still pursuing the installation of privacy walls beside the toilets as shared previously.' While he and his team 'pursue' the building of a couple of walls, a QR code has been displayed in the toilets so that pupils can report any incidents of bullying – a move which I am sure is of great comfort to any girl who has to deal with menstruation with only a flimsy door, which doesn't even reach to the ceiling, separating her from a crowd of teenage boys. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Edinburgh to ignore Court of Session? But surely Edinburgh City Council, responsible for the management of the city's schools, has updated its advice to schools following the Supreme Court ruling? It may have ignored the Court of Session's landmark ruling, also in April, regarding Borders Council – when the court decreed that all Scottish schools must provide single-sex toilets, based on regulations passed nearly 50 years ago – but not even Edinburgh is going to ignore the highest court in the land, is it? It appears it might. Earlier this week, a council spokesperson said: 'We're continuing to consider the implications of the Supreme Court judgment and the Court of Session declarator, along with the interim update on the practical implications issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We look forward to receiving the updated code of practice from EHRC and UK Government which will inform what changes, if any, we need to make to council facilities, policies and procedures.' What part of the law does the city council not understand? The 1967 School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations state that '… in every school which is not designed exclusively for girls half the accommodation [number of toilets] shall be for boys'. Or are council officials confused by the Court of Session's ruling that mixed-sex schools must have single-sex toilets? Could it be the city council, like the Church of Scotland, prefers to heed the advice of partisan campaigners rather than the law of the land? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Couldn't be clearer' A spokesperson for campaign group For Women Scotland, who took the historic case to the Supreme Court, was baffled by the council's response. She said: 'We are bewildered that schools are struggling with the implications of the Supreme Court ruling – and also the judicial review regarding Borders Council. 'It couldn't be clearer: schools must act now to protect children and ensure safeguards are robust. We have been telling schools in Edinburgh, including Gillespie's, that they must act for months now. Waiting for the EHRC's code of practice won't change a thing and it is unconscionable that, in the interim, girls are needlessly being exposed to harm.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
US judge clears path for eight immigrants to be deported to South Sudan
Eight migrants lost their last-ditch effort to halt their deportation to South Sudan by the Trump administration on Friday, clearing the way for their imminent transfer after a judge in Massachusetts denied their request. Lawyers for the justice department said the men were scheduled to be flown to South Sudan on Friday at 7pm Eastern Time after two courts considered the request on an emergency basis on 4 July, when courts were otherwise closed for the Independence Day holiday. Lawyers for the migrants had filed new claims in Washington late on Thursday after the supreme court clarified that a judge in Massachusetts could no longer require the US Department of Homeland Security to hold them. District judge Randolph Moss in Washington paused the deportation briefly on Friday afternoon but sent the case back to US district judge Brian Murphy in Boston. Murphy said the supreme court order required him to deny their bid, saying their claims that deportation was being used as a form of punishment were 'substantially similar' to the ones he had ruled on previously. The order was the latest round in the fight over the legality of the Trump administration's campaign to deter immigration through high-profile deportations to countries where migrants say they face safety concerns, and which has already gone from lower courts to the supreme court twice. The eight men awaiting deportation are from countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba and Myanmar. Just one is from South Sudan. All have been convicted of serious crimes, which the Trump administration has emphasized in justifying their banishment. Many had either finished or were close to finishing serving sentences, and had 'orders of removal' directing them to leave the US. A lawyer for the men have said they could 'face perilous conditions' upon arriving in the country. South Sudan is enmeshed in civil war, and the US government advises no one should travel there before making their own funeral arrangements. The administration has been trying to deport the immigrants for weeks. The government flew them to the US naval base in Djibouti but couldn't move them further because Murphy had ruled no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a chance to have a court hearing. Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer with the Seattle Clemency Project who represents the migrants, called the ruling disappointing. 'Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. 'That is what is so tragic about where we came out.'
