Palestine Action has been granted permission to challenge its controversial ban by the UK government under terrorism legislation.
In a significant ruling, the High Court has determined that the proscription of the group, known for conducting break-ins at defense firms linked to Israel as part of direct action protests, should be subject to review.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper implemented the ban last month following an incident where followers allegedly caused an estimated £7 million in damages to jets at RAF Brize Norton.
Lawyers representing the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, have contended that the ban infringes upon the right to free speech and effectively silences legitimate protest. The government maintains that the ban is justified, as it narrowly targets a group engaged in serious criminal activity.
The designation means that membership or support for Palestine Action is now a criminal offense, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Mr. Justice Chamberlain stated in his ruling that the ban could potentially conflict with rights to free speech and that the Home Secretary may have been required to consult with Palestine Action prior to its implementation.
However, he denied the group’s appeal to temporarily lift the ban, which remains in effect pending a full review of the Home Secretary’s decision by the High Court over a three-day period in November.
The government’s legal representatives were denied permission to appeal against Wednesday’s court ruling.
Meanwhile, opponents of the ban have expressed intentions to organize a demonstration in London early next month.
The judge cautioned that a delay in reviewing the ban could lead to “chaos” as individuals accused of supporting the group might challenge their prosecutions on the grounds of wrongful application.
Mr. Justice Chamberlain noted that while a formalized, semi-secret appeal process exists for groups seeking a Home Office review of a ban, this process would not result in a hearing before a panel for at least a year.
He argued that this delay could prompt individuals accused of offenses related to supporting or being members of Palestine Action to contest their prosecutions.
Approximately 200 individuals have been arrested on suspicion of publicly demonstrating support for PA since the ban was enacted.
“If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defense to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates’ courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. That would be a recipe for chaos,” said the judge.
He asserted that there was a “strong public interest” in allowing the legality of the ban to be determined through judicial review proceedings at the High Court.
Court documents, disclosed to the BBC, reveal that officials and ministers deliberated for at least eight months regarding whether to ban Palestine Action under terrorism legislation.
The UK’s terrorism laws primarily target groups that employ serious violence to advance a cause. However, the definition also empowers ministers to outlaw organizations that cause serious criminal damage. Palestine Action is the first group to be proscribed under this particular aspect of the definition.
Since its inception in July 2020, the group has undertaken over 385 direct actions against firms it associates with Israel’s military, resulting in more than 676 arrests.
The cross-government debate concerning a ban gained momentum last November following an assessment of the damage allegedly caused by Palestine Action’s members during a break-in at Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense firm, in Bristol the preceding August.
Eighteen individuals have been charged in connection with that incident, which includes allegations of assaulting a security guard and two police officers.
The individuals have all denied wrongdoing, and trials are scheduled to commence later this year.
Government papers presented in the legal challenge brought by Ms. Ammori reveal that police chiefs informed the Home Office that the network’s activity remained “unaffected” by standard criminal investigations.
“Operationally, existing legislation is seen as insufficient to address high-level offences, which meet the definition of terrorism,” officials wrote in March.
“There is currently no existing legislation to deal with [Palestine Action] holistically, meaning the network can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in response to isolated incidents of direct action.
“From the perspective of regional police forces, it is argued that this fractured case-by-case approach has proven operationally ineffective, considerably limiting preventative and disruptive opportunities.”
The police argued that banning the group would aid in crime prevention, but also cautioned that it could be perceived as “state repression” and the utilization of “draconian counter-terrorism legislation.”
This concern was partially echoed by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in its advice to Home Office counterparts.
Officials there suggested that while a ban might be interpreted by some international partners as a stance against antisemitism, they added: “Acting in this way may be interpreted as an overreaction by the UK.
“Palestine Action’s activity is largely viewed by international partners as activism and not extremism or terrorism.”
They advised that Palestinians and Arab states might view banning PAG as an attempt to suppress activism, and a Home Office analysis of potential tensions within the UK also highlighted risks.
“Proscribing PA would almost certainly be perceived as evidence of bias against the British Muslim community in favour of British Jews and Israel more broadly,” officials wrote in one of the documents disclosed in the case.
“[Proscripton] is likely to generate significant discontent and could introduce new social cohesion challenges.”
By the end of March, documents indicate that the Home Secretary was considering banning the group but had raised several questions.
The papers suggest she consulted with other ministers during May and ultimately decided to ban the group after the 20 June break-in at RAF Brize Norton.
In his ruling, Mr. Justice Chamberlain stated that awaiting a decision on the ban “will have an impact on the claimant’s and others’ freedom of expression and freedom to protest on an issue of considerable importance to them and, whether one agrees with them or not, to the country as a whole.”
He also referenced evidence presented during the case of incidents where some individuals protesting the situation in Gaza had attracted police attention, even though they were not supporters of Palestine Action.
“A woman in Kent was questioned by armed officers for holding a sign with the words “Free Gaza” and a Palestinian flag,” said the judge.
He cited the case of human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who posted on social media that he had been stopped by security staff at a concert in Trafalgar Square because he was wearing a badge in the colors of the Palestinian flag.
Mr. Justice Chamberlain stated that such reports “are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.”
Fareham and Waterlooville MP Suella Braverman has criticized the plans as “utterly inappropriate”.
Its leader has called for the Home Office to pause plans to house males only at the Stanwell venue.
Lincolnshire’s chief constable raises prospect of deep cuts as he prepares to meet the government.
Dorset Police and Immigration Enforcement asked for Chicken N Beer’s licence to be revoked in May.
Assaults on police community support officers are up 40%, according to data obtained by the BBC.