Terror arrest over Palestine Action RAF attack
A 22-year-old man, of no fixed abode, was arrested on Friday in Bedford on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The arrested man is currently in police custody, Counter Terrorism Policing South added
Two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on June 20.
The action, which was claimed by the group Palestine Action, caused £7m worth of damage to the aircraft.
Four people were charged last month in connection with the incident.
The Government subsequently moved to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws after the group claimed responsibility for the action. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful'.
However, Palestine Action's co-founder has since won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation.
Lawyers for Huda Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression.
In a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable' and would be heard at a three-day hearing in November.
However, he later refused a bid to temporarily pause the ban on the direct action group until the outcome of the challenge.
In his first ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.'
The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.'
He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.'
The judge refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it.
He also refused the request for a temporary block, finding there was a 'powerful public interest' in the ban continuing and there was not a 'material change of circumstance' since a previous hearing.
Following the first ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.'
She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.'
Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'.
Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.'
The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription.
Previously, Ben Watson KC, also for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.
Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer.
He said in a summary of his ruling: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.'
In his 18-page written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence 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.
'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.'
The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'.
He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'.
But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… 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.'
Mr Justice Chamberlain later dismissed a bid by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about the POAC.
Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said on Wednesday that he understood Ms Cooper's decision, adding: 'As long as that's the law, we'll enforce the law rigorously, because supporting a terrorist organisation is a serious offence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Yorkshire Water boss paid 'extra' £1.3 million from firm's offshore parent company despite 'dire' environmental record and hikes to bills
A water company boss was handed more than £1.3 million in 'extra' pay from an offshore firm, despite its abysmal record on pollution and increasing household bills. Chief executive Nicola Shaw pocketed two payments of £660,000 in the last two years from Yorkshire Water's parent company Kelda Holdings, in addition to her salary with the beleaguered utilities firm. Yorkshire Water was allowed to raise average annual household bills by 41 per cent last year, and this summer introduced a hosepipe ban for its 5.5 million customers. It was ordered to pay £40 million in the spring to address its 'serious failures' over wastewater and sewage, and was also separately fined nearly £1 million last month for polluting a watercourse with chlorine, causing the death of hundreds of fish. Yorkshire Water is one of the six water companies currently banned from paying bonuses under Government action designed to prevent bosses who 'oversee poor environmental and customer outcomes' from receiving extra money. But figures showed Ms Shaw received just over £1.3 million between 2023 and 2025 from Kelda, in addition to her Yorkshire Water salary of around £689,000 per year - remuneration which was reduced by about one-third after she decided to forgo her bonus before the Government performance-related pay ban came in. The Kelda money is 'a fixed fee for investor-related work' performed by Ms Shaw for the parent company 'and complies fully with expectations and reporting requirements', Yorkshire Water said. Including the offshore company payments, she has been awarded more than £3 million in total pay over three years since she joined the firm in 2022, according to analysis first reported by the Guardian. Ofwat, the water regulator, is now investigating. Ms Shaw's earnings have infuriated environmental campaign groups. Amy Fairman, head of campaigns for River Action, said: 'Yorkshire Water has just been fined over £900,000 for polluting a watercourse with millions of litres of chlorinated water, killing hundreds of fish, yet its CEO is quietly handed an extra £1.3 million through an offshore firm. 'This is business as usual in a system that rewards environmental destruction and shields those responsible. 'Until executives are held criminally accountable, not just cushioned by shareholders, nothing will change. 'And unless we see a complete overhaul of the water industry, one that finally ends the failed privatisation experiment, this scandalous cycle will continue.' The Ilkley Clean River Group has now written to Kelda chairman Vanda Murray, asking her to justify Ms Shaw's pay given Yorkshire Water's dismal record under her watch. The campaigners wrote: 'To the customer, the additional payments to Ms Shaw look like a way of "working around" the fact that bonuses were causing public outrage and subsequently banned by government. 'There is in effect no change to eye-watering salaries at the top of Yorkshire Water.' A Yorkshire Water spokesman said Ms Shaw's work for Kelda Group included 'investor engagement, financial oversight, and management of the Kelda Group, which is recognised by a fee of £660,000 paid by shareholders'. He added: 'This is a conscious governance decision: we do not believe that work done on investor-related activities should be paid for by Yorkshire Water customers' bills. 'This fee, which has remained unchanged year on year, reflects the critical importance of the work during this period that was led by Nicola in securing long-term investment for Yorkshire Water. 'We remain focused on our long-term commitment to delivering better outcomes for customers, communities, and the environment across the region.' It was reported tonight that Ofwat's chief executive David Black is due to resign, ahead of the watchdog's planned abolition by ministers.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Worker at Berkshire psychiatric hospital where girl, 14, died, had no experience, inquest hears
A support worker with a false identity who left a vulnerable 14-year-old girl unwatched in a secure psychiatric ward during his first shift had never worked in a hospital before, the teenager's inquest has heard. Following the death of Ruth Szymankiewicz, police found the support worker had 'stolen' the false identity, had a fake passport and was able to get the shift at the hospital through an agency after brief training. CCTV footage played to the inquest jury on Tuesday appeared to show Ruth going into her room at Huntercombe hospital in Maidenhead, Berkshire and closing the door, though she was supposed to be under 1:1 observation. The footage suggested Ruth was left alone and unobserved in her room for 15 minutes. There was no sign of the support worker. While in her room, Ruth is believed to have carried out an act of self harm that led to her death. After 15 minutes another staff member went into her room and raised the alarm. Sgt Francesca Keen of Thames Valley police told the inquest that the support worker tasked with watching Ruth at that time arrived in the UK about three months before and stole the name Ebo Acheampong from a 'completely innocent man'. He signed up with a healthcare recruitment agency called Platinum. Keen said: 'They felt they had checked his ID and were dealing with a legitimate person.' The inquest heard his training consisted of a day or day-and-a-half course, much of which was e-learning. The day after completing his training, he was given what Keen said was his 'first and only shift' at Huntercombe and in the evening was put in charge of watching Ruth, who had a serious eating disorder. Keen was asked if there was anything to suggest he had worked at any other hospital before. She replied: 'No.' The officer said that the worker had claimed he left Ruth alone to help with another emergency nearby. But the CCTV footage played in court showed no evidence of this. Five days later, the man flew from the UK for Ghana via Heathrow. The officer said police now knew his true identity but did not have evidence to charge him and he could not be extradited. Ruth's parents, Kate and Mark Szymankiewicz, a GP and a consultant surgeon, have strongly criticised the standard of care at Huntercombe, which was run by the company Active Care Group and has now closed. They are also critical that Ruth was being detained more than 70 miles from their home in Wiltshire. In a statement read out in court, Mark Szymankiewicz said he felt Ruth was 'in limbo' – Huntercombe was not an appropriate place for her but there was nowhere else for her to go. The jury heard an extract from Ruth's notebook in which she claimed there was 'non existent' therapy at the hospital and said staff slept on their shift. She described it as the 'shittest mental institution'. Ruth's parents are concerned she had unchecked access to her mobile phone. The inquest was told that in the weeks before her death she did research on methods of suicide and how many calories were in food including eggs, slices of toast and cereal. The hearing at Buckinghamshire coroner's court continues. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@ or jo@ In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on 988, chat on or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
CEO of UK's water regulator Ofwat to step down
LONDON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Britain's Ofwat said on Tuesday its chief executive, David Black, would step down following a government decision last month to abolish the water regulator. In a statement, which came after Sky News first reported the story, Ofwat announced that Black has decided the "time is right to pursue new opportunities" and would step down at the end of August. An interim replacement is set to be appointed in due course, the regulator added. It comes after environment minister Steve Reed said last month he had agreed to abolish Ofwat as part of a regulatory overhaul. Britain will create a new powerful regulator for its water industry following public fury over sewage spills.
