Palestine Action to be banned as terrorist organisation at midnight – after losing late legal challenge

Sky News

a day ago

Palestine Action will be banned as a terrorist group after losing a legal challenge less than two hours before the law comes into force.
MPs overwhelmingly voted in favour of Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the protest group under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Lords have backed the move.
The law change, which adds Palestine Action to the list of banned organisations along with the likes of al Qaeda, ISIS and Hezbollah, will come into force at midnight.
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, while even wearing a T-shirt or badge with the group's name on attracts a maximum six-month sentence.
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action after two Voyager aircraft were allegedly damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on 20 June, which police said caused around £7m worth of damage.
But the High Court heard the decision had been taken before the incident and as early as March this year.
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is seeking to bring a legal challenge against the Home Office with a hearing for permission to bring a judicial review set to take place during the week of 21 July.
Her lawyers applied for "interim relief" on Friday to temporarily block the legislation from coming into force until that hearing, arguing the Irish author Sally Rooney, who wrote Normal People, was among supporters who fear the "ramifications".
But Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the application, saying: "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."
He refused permission to appeal but lawyers representing Ms Ammori applied directly to the Court of Appeal for a rare urgent hearing to challenge the decision.
Three judges, including the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, refused permission to appeal in a ruling less than two hours before the ban was due to come into force.
Around two hundred protestors earlier gathered outside court in support of the group, with some banging drums, waving Palestinian flags, wearing the keffiyeh scarf or holding placards and signs.
Counter-protesters also arrived amid a heavy police presence.
Raza Husain KC - one of 13 barristers inside a courtroom packed with journalists and members of the public - said his client Ms Ammori was inspired by the "long tradition" of direct action in the UK from suffragettes and activists protesting against apartheid and the Iraq war.
"This is the first time in our history a direct action, civil disobedience group which does not advocate violence has sought to be proscribed as terrorists," he said.
"We ask you to suspend, in the first instance until 21 July, what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory, authoritarian abuse of statutory power that is alien to the basic tradition of common law and contrary to the Human Rights Act."
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, said, along with the hundreds of T-shirts in circulation, the red boiler suits associated with the group and even kaffiyehs could "arouse suspicion of membership".
She said the ban would have a "chilling effect" on protest and free speech, criminalising "a huge range of behaviour", and having "severe and far reaching" consequences capable of impacting "vast numbers" of people across the UK and further afield.
But Ben Watson KC, representing the government, said former members would still be free to express their views, and would not be treated any differently even if their protests involved direct action which is criminal.
He argued a temporary block would be a "serious disfigurement of the statutory regime" and Palestine Action could challenge the home secretary's decision at a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
"The serious issue to be tried is met in full by the adequate alternative remedy that parliament has provided," he said.
"Even if the court does conclude that there is some residual scope for judicial review… then we respectfully submit that the court needs to look at the bespoke regime that parliament has provided."