Latest news with #LordHermer
Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Mosque praised by Lord Hermer investigated for ‘Israeli lobby' claims
A mosque praised by Lord Hermer is being investigated for posting a video suggesting senior Government figures had taken donations from the 'Israeli lobby'. The Abdullah Quilliam Society, which was described as 'inspiring' by the Attorney General last year, is being investigated by the Charity Commission over the potentially 'divisive' remarks, which were posted on its social media account in June. The video in question, which has since been taken down, suggested that senior members of the Government were acting improperly and had received donations from the 'Israeli lobby', the watchdog said. It also claimed that the commission had been unduly influenced to 'silence' trustees, according to a notice published on the Government website. It comes after the watchdog issued the mosque, in Liverpool, with an official warning over a separate 'inflammatory' talk held shortly after the Oct 7 Hamas massacre in 2023. In that sermon, which focused on the war in Gaza, Haroon Hanif, an Islamic preacher, accused Israel of 'genocide' and told worshippers that Muslims should 'continue waging your war for Allah and his messenger, don't back down'. The nature of Mr Hanif's affiliation with the mosque, if any, is unknown. He delivered the talk on Oct 20, roughly two weeks after the Hamas terror attacks on Israel. On Thursday, the commission announced that it had launched a statutory inquiry into the Abdullah Quilliam Society in relation to a new video posted in June this year. As it has since been taken down, The Telegraph has been unable to view the footage. However, the commission said it suggested that named senior members of the Government had received donations from the 'Israeli lobby'. The video is believed to have been drawn from a sermon that took place after the charity was served with its official warning in June, which required it to implement 'robust' social media policies. The mosque has been ordered to refrain from holding any sermons or posting any videos that go against its 'best interests' while the investigation is carried out. Lord Hermer went to visit the Abdullah Quilliam Society in August last year, discussing ways to keep the Muslim community safe in the wake of the riots triggered by the Southport killings. He said it had been 'truly wonderful' to hear about the community's response to the protests, which affected the mosque directly, and said he had come away with 'many ideas'. In a video posted on the society's Instagram account, he said: 'It's been inspiring learning about the work of this mosque... It has been a huge, huge pleasure.' It is understood his trip to the mosque was organised through local justice and policing teams and formed part of a wider set of visits to the area that day. In a statement on Thursday, the Charity Commission said: 'The investigation is launched after the charity posted a video to its social media channels in June 2025, whose contents may not have furthered the charity's objects [and] could potentially be considered political, divisive and inflammatory. 'The video suggested that named senior members of the Westminster Government were acting improperly and had received donations from the 'Israeli lobby' and that the commission was also being unduly influenced to 'silence' trustees. 'The video appeared to be drawn from a sermon delivered at the charity's premises on June 27 2025 and has since been removed from the charity's social media platforms.' It added: 'The commission's concerns are aggravated by previous engagement with the charity over the content of sermons and speeches at its premises, which culminated in an official warning issued against the charity on 12 June of this year. 'The warning stated that the trustees should take a number of steps, including to ensure all the charity's activities are in furtherance of its purposes, and to create, implement and adhere to robust policies around the use of speakers and social media.' The inquiry by the Charity Commission will look into the circumstances around the latest video, determining whether its content was 'in furtherance of the charity's objects' and in its 'best interests'. It will also seek to understand whether the charity has updated its policies following the official warning in June. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'It is shocking that Keir Starmer's Attorney General has praised a mosque that is under investigation for sermons accusing Jewish 'lobbies' of controlling Westminster. 'It is a long-standing and despicable anti-Semitic trope that Government or the media is under the control of the Jewish lobby. 'Labour can't have it both ways. You can't hand out warm words to groups fuelling hatred one week and pretend to stand for community cohesion the next. This is now a test of Labour's credibility.'
The Guardian
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
If the UK recognises Palestine does it risk breaking international law?
A group of senior lawyers has written to the UK government's most senior legal adviser, Lord Hermer, claiming that Keir Starmer's pledge to recognise Palestine risks breaking international law. Here the Guardian explains the Montevideo convention, which they cite, and examines whether it does represent an obstacle to recognition. It is a treaty signed in the Uruguayan capital in 1933 by 19 states, all from the Americas, including the US, that set four criteria for recognition of a state. They were: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into international relations. The fact that the UK did not sign does not mean that it would not apply to it, as it can be recognised as part of customary international law. According to the Times, which has seen the letter, it says that there is no certainty over the borders of a proposed Palestinian state and the government would face difficulty continuing to recognise millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as 'refugees', given recognition of statehood would mean they were in their own territory. The signatories also reportedly point to the fact that there is no functioning single government – Hamas controls Gaza and Fatah the West Bank – and claim that it has no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations (although it does have embassies and is party to international treaties). The state of Palestine has been recognised by 147 other countries, which suggests they disagree. Philippe Sands KC, a professor of law at UCL, pointed out that in its advisory opinion last year the UN's top court, the international court of justice (ICJ), recognised 'the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign state'. Sands said: 'I have no doubt whatsoever that if it were asked, the ICJ would reject the argument that it is somehow unlawful to recognise the existence of Palestinian statehood. Palestine meets all the legal criteria of statehood; all that remains is a political consideration, namely whether to recognise or not that those criteria are met. The court's language makes clear that that right exists now, and it exists because all the criteria for statehood are met.' Victor Kattan, assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham, said that the Montevideo convention was a 'starting point' but that other rules of international law had emerged since, including the right of self-determination. He said that many states had or had previously had border disputes and governance issues. 'Of course the Palestinian Authority is not able to exercise all elements of government authority but that's because of an occupation which the ICJ last year declared was unlawful,' he said. It was reportedly signed by 40 peers, including many senior lawyers, among them Lord Pannick KC and Lady Deech. They are both patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), whose chief executive, Jonathan Turner, has said that neither Israel's occupation nor its settlements are illegal. Another signatory, Lord Verdirame, unsuccessfully argued alongside Pannick, in a submission to the international criminal court, that it had no jurisdiction over crimes allegedly committed in the occupied Palestinian territories. The former supreme court judge Lord Collins also signed.
Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Hermer dismisses Palestine challenge by top lawyers
Lord Hermer has rejected claims that recognising Palestine as a state is illegal, despite 40 peers warning the opposite, The Telegraph understands. The Attorney General was directly challenged in a letter questioning the legality of Sir Keir Starmer's plan to recognise the Palestinian state formally in September. The signatories from the House of Lords argue that a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition laid out in the so-called Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. But it is understood Lord Hermer, a close personal friend of the Prime Minister since their days as fellow lawyers, does not agree with the arguments put forward. The Attorney General's position would likely be reflected in any legal advice issued to Sir Keir before the change in position was unveiled on Tuesday. A spokesman for Lord Hermer's office declined to comment, citing the long-standing convention not to disclose whether legal advice may or may not exist on particular issues. The Prime Minister said he would recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel meets four conditions. He wants Israel to end the 'appalling' situation in Gaza and allow the UN to restart the supply of aid; reach a ceasefire; 'make clear' there will be no annexation in the West Bank; and commit to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution. Sir Keir also repeated calls for Hamas to release all remaining hostages captured on October 7, but that demand was not made an explicit condition for recognition to take place. That position has become a focal point for critics who argue it could provide an incentive for Hamas not to release hostages, since a ceasefire would, under the UK position, help block Palestinian statehood. The letter to Lord Hermer from the 40 peers, including prominent Israel supporters, first reported by The Times, argued that the Government's approach risked breaking international law. The signatories wrote: 'We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. 'You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this Government and its approach to foreign policy. 'You have said that a selective 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.' The Montevideo Convention, signed in the Uruguayan capital, named four criteria for statehood in international law: that a state has a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states. The signatories questioned whether these four tests had been met. Lord Pannick, who represented the Government in the legal tussles over the Rwanda deportation scheme, put his name to the letter. So too did Lord Faulks KC, a prominent human rights lawyer, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former Supreme Court judge, and Lord Walney, the Government's former adviser on political violence and disruption. A spokesman for the Attorney General's office said: 'The Attorney General is the Government's chief legal adviser but, by long-standing convention, the fact he may have advised or not advised, and the content of his advice, is not disclosed outside government, as is reflected in the ministerial code. 'Decisions on policy are taken by the relevant Secretary of State and Departments as has been the case under successive governments.'
Daily Mail
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Ministers condemn 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain will be forced to pay massive reparations over climate change
Ministers have condemned a 'flawed and unworkable' UN court ruling amid fears Britain could be forced to pay massive reparations for climate change. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. The Tories have warned Attorney General Lord Hermer's 'ideological obsession' with international law means the government could follow the edict. But touring broadcast studios this morning, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insisted the UK should not 'apologise or pay reparations' for leading the industrial revolution. He told Times Radio: 'I think that's completely unreasonable and unworkable from a legal point of view. 'Whilst we should obviously take seriously our legacy, our history, the contribution that UK has made to the world on a number of areas, I think the industrial revolution was not a bad thing. 'The fact that we have a modern industrial society is a good thing. We led on that innovation that then has been transferred around the world. But I don't think it's anything to apologise for or pay reparations for.' Challenged that the UK had obeyed a similar advisory ruling on the status of the Chagos Islands, Mr Reynolds said that 'essential national security functions' had been at stake in that case. 'I think any argument that there should be reparations paid for British history and that should fall on the British people today... I think it's a flawed judgment in my view,' he added. Campaigners have hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. Harj Narulla, a barrister specialising in climate litigation and counsel for Solomon Islands in the case, said the ICJ laid out the possibility of big emitters being successfully sued. 'These reparations involve restitution — such as rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and restoring ecosystems — and also monetary compensation,' he said. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
Daily Mail
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
UN court opens the floodgates for poorer nations to sue Britain over contributions to climate change
The UK could be sued over its contribution to climate change after a court ruling that countries are responsible for their emissions. The International Court of Justice said nations are obliged to comply with climate treaties and failure to do so was a breach of international law. While the ruling is non-binding, it is likely to influence legislation globally and may open the floodgates to a series of court cases against countries such as the UK. Despite being advisory, there are fears it could be enshrined in law by Labour, who, under the guidance of Attorney General Lord Hermer, have an 'ideological obsession' with international law, the Tories warned on Wednesday night. Campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for small nations affected by climate change over big polluters such as the US and China. Judge Yuji Iwasawa, the court president, said: 'Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate... may constitute an internationally wrongful act.' Environmental lawyers said the judgment would lead to a rise in court cases over climate change. Danilo Garrido, legal counsel for Greenpeace, said: 'This is the start of a new era of climate accountability at a global level.' Sebastien Duyck, at the Centre for International Environmental Law, laid out the possibility of nations being sued. 'If states have legal duties to prevent climate harm, then victims of that harm have a right to redress,' he said. And Joana Setzer, climate litigation expert at the London School of Economics, told Sky News that the ruling 'adds decisive weight to calls for fair and effective climate reparations'. It is the largest case heard by the ICJ in the Hague, and involved 96 countries, 10,000 pages of documents, 15 judges and two weeks of hearings in December. In its ruling, the United Nations' highest court said countries that breach their climate obligations set out in treaties could be sued by states which can prove they have suffered damage as a result. Mr Iwasawa said. 'States must cooperate to achieve concrete emission reduction targets. The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The case, brought by law students from Pacific islands affected by climate change, addressed two questions – what obligations were on countries under international law to protect the climate, and what legal consequences should those that have broken them face. Wealthier countries, including the UK, argued existing treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement should be used to decide their responsibilities. But developing nations and island states such as Vanuatu in the Pacific argued there should be stronger legally-binding measures in place and called for reparations. The court ruled developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change, such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure, or could claim compensation. However, the court said it was not concerned with setting out when these responsibilities would date from, leaving questions about countries being sued over historical emissions going back to the Industrial Revolution. Government sources stressed the UK would be under no obligation to pay reparations, a stance likely to be tested by lawyers. A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'It will take time to look at this detailed, non-binding, advisory opinion before commenting in detail. We will continue to collaborate closely to create the conditions for greater ambition and action, including with Brazil as it prepares to host COP30.' Despite being non-binding, previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments including the UK, such as agreeing to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel described the court's climate ruling as 'mad', adding: 'The ICJ has lost its core purpose and is now joining political campaigns and bandwagons based upon ideological obsessions... and destroying the sovereign rights of national governments. 'We challenge Labour to put Britain's interest first and make clear they do not intend to act on this ridiculous advisory ruling.'
