Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets.
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.
But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'.
The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme.
Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday.
At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'.
In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel.
F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
An earlier hearing in the case was 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'.
In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'.
He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision.
Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
17 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC leadership over Glastonbury live stream
It came after rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds at the festival's West Holts Stage in chants of 'free, free Palestine' and 'death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)' on Saturday. Ms Nandy said the Government is 'exasperated' with the 'lack of account from the leadership', as MPs from across the chamber called for accountability. Bobby Vylan performing at Glastonbury Festival (Ben Birchall/PA) In a statement on the BBC and Glastonbury, she said 'problems with broadcasts' at the festival 'should have been foreseeable'. Labour MP Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) said: 'How are Jews such as myself, in this country, to be reassured about the editorial processes of the BBC? And who on Earth will be held accountable for this error?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He makes an extremely important point about accountability, and that is something that is not lost on me as the Secretary of State, and something that I've impressed upon the BBC leadership as well. 'When you have one editorial failure, it's something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.' Conservative former minister John Glen said: 'I think we all in this place understand the fine editorial judgments that the BBC and their staff have to make, but this is of a completely different order, and when people are losing faith in the great institutions of this country, could I urge the Secretary of State, in her follow-up conversations that … the BBC actually identified accountability to individuals?' He added: 'Somebody didn't follow that guidance, and I think the country expects people to be held individually to account for why they fail to do their job properly.' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think people do expect people to be held to account for the way that they do their jobs, be that on the front line or at senior levels. It's a point that I've made to the BBC. 'They will have heard what he said and what (Mr Prinsley) said as well about accountability, and it's a point that I will continue to press.' Jim Allister, TUV MP for North Antrim, described the live stream as 'an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast', adding: 'The BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast, perhaps therefore it's time for Government to consider cutting the licence fee?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He will know that this Government supports the BBC. We believe it is an important institution. 'That is why we are so disappointed that this has happened, why we have been so exasperated with the lack of account from the leadership, not just about this, but about a previous Gaza documentary and a number of other issues as well. 'The BBC is one of the most important institutions in our country, and that is the reason why it is held to the highest of standards.' Conservative MP Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: 'I wonder if the Secretary of State could say what explanation the BBC has given for why this live stream wasn't cut? 'Now it can't be for lack of staff on the ground. They took a reported 400 people to Glastonbury at the weekend. What were they all doing?' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think she's right to raise the question of what the number of staff who were present at the Glastonbury Festival, or working on the broadcast, were doing. 'But I do think this also raises very, very serious questions at the highest levels of the BBC about the operational oversight and the way in which editorial standards are understood and reflected in the decisions that are made by individual staff.' Shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew called for an independent inquiry, claiming the BBC 'has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric, when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities'. Ms Nandy replied: 'What I want to see from the BBC, and I know he shares this, is rapid action to make sure this cannot happen again.' She also claimed an Independent MP was 'aligning himself with antisemites'. Ayoub Khan, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, had accused the Government of 'hypocrisy' because it did not make a statement when Israeli football fans 'were chanting 'death to all Arabs'' in November last year. Ms Nandy said she 'could not disagree more', adding: 'I think every member of this House will utterly condemn chants of 'death to all Arabs' – it's disgusting and disgraceful.' She continued: 'The reason I have brought a statement to the House today is because our national broadcaster, which is funded by the licence fee, which is paid by the public in this country, has broadcast something that is deeply, deeply offensive to a community in this country, that has made many, many people feel and may actually have made them unsafe. 'Can I just say to him that as a longstanding supporter of justice for the Palestinians, he does nothing for the Palestinian cause by aligning himself with antisemites.' In a point of order, Mr Khan said: 'At no stage have I said in my question or statement that I was aligning myself to anyone at that Glastonbury event.'
The Herald Scotland
17 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.'
North Wales Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government demands investigation after Lindsey oil refinery owner collapses
State Oil – the parent company of Prax Group, which owns the Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire – appointed administrators on Monday. A separate winding-up order has also been made against the Lindsey oil refinery and related businesses and a liquidator has been appointed. More than 180 staff are employed by State Oil, while it is thought that around another 420 work at the Lindsey refinery. Energy minister Michael Shanks called on the company's owner to 'put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers'. He said the Government is demanding an investigation into the conduct of the company's directors and the circumstances surrounding its failure. The Lindsey site is one of only five large oil refineries remaining in the UK after the recent closure of the Grangemouth plant in Scotland. Prax Group is led by majority owner and chairman and chief executive Sanjeev Kumar Soosaipillai, who bought the Lindsey oil refinery from French firm Total in 2021. Mr Shanks vowed to 'ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security' and said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband 'is today writing to the Insolvency Service to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of the directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency'. He later told the Commons: 'The Government believes the business's leadership have a responsibility to the workers and the local community, and we are calling on them to do the right thing and provide support to the workers through this difficult period. 'The wealthy owner cannot wash his hands of his obligations to the workers and their families, and that's why we are calling on him to put his hands in his pockets and deliver proper compensation for the workers.' Mr Shanks added the Government was told about commercial difficulties 'at the end of April', with the refinery having 'recorded a total of around £75 million worth of losses between its acquisition in 2021 and the financial year ending in February 2024'. He said: 'The Secretary of State was reassured by the company that there was no immediate closure risk to the refinery. A week ago, the business changed their position and said they feared it could no longer be a going concern. 'We repeatedly asked them at official and ministerial level what the financial gap was, to work out whether the Government could help bridge that gap, but the company were unable to share that basic information.' Trade union Unite said the Government needed to urgently intervene to help protect UK fuel supplies and jobs. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: 'The Lindsey oil refinery is strategically important and the Government must intervene immediately to protect workers and fuel supplies. 'Unite has constantly warned the Government that its policies have placed the oil and gas industry on a cliff edge.' Built in 1968, the Lindsey refinery can process around 113,000 barrels of oil a day. Clare Boardman, joint administrator of State Oil and Prax, said: 'We appreciate that this is a very difficult and uncertain time for the employees and everyone involved and we will be on site to support them during this challenging period. 'We will be considering all options for the group, including the prospect of a sale for the group's upstream business and retail operations in the UK and Europe, all of which remain outside of insolvency. 'We thank the group's team members and other stakeholders for their continued support.' Prax Group was not immediately available for comment.
