UK court rejects case against lawfulness of Britain exporting fighter jet parts to Israel
Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to
Israel
, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in
Gaza
, was lawful, London's High Court ruled on Monday.
Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied
West Bank
, had taken legal action against Britain's department for business and trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year.
The UK had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law in Israel's military campaign.
But Britain did not suspend licences for F-35 components, which go into a pool of spare parts which Israel can use on its existing F-35 jets.
READ MORE
Britain said suspending those licences would disrupt a global programme that supplies parts for the aircraft, with a knock-on impact on international security. It said taking such action could 'undermine US confidence in the UK and Nato'.
Al-Haq had argued at a hearing last month that the decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention, but the High Court dismissed the group's challenge.
Judges Stephen Males and Karen Steyn said the case was about whether the court could rule that Britain must withdraw from the international F-35 programme, which was 'a matter for the executive . . . not for the courts'.
According to Gaza officials, Israel's bombardment has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians while displacing almost the whole population of more than two million and plunging the enclave into a humanitarian crisis.
Israel launched its campaign in response to the October 2023 attack in which Hamas-led fighters killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages.
The court said Britain's business minister Jonathan Reynolds was 'faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue'.
Al-Haq said it was disappointed with the ruling, but that its legal challenge had contributed to Britain's partial suspension of arms export licences in 2024.
Jennine Walker, a lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network which supported Al-Haq's case, said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London: 'We are currently analysing the judgment for grounds of appeal.
'This is a regrettable setback after such a long battle for Al-Haq and all the Palestinians who have been following the case. However, this is not the end.'
Charity Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also criticised the ruling.
A British government spokesperson said: 'This [ruling] shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.' – Reuters
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
High Court cancels registration of former deputy state pathogist Dr Khalid Jaber
A former deputy state pathologist found guilty of professional misconduct over his post-mortem examination findings in two criminal cases has had his registration cancelled by the High Court. On Monday, High Court president Mr Justice David Barniville confirmed a decision of the Irish Medical Council (IMC) to impose the most severe sanction and cancel the registration of Dr Khalid Jaber. The judge also referred to 'bizarre communication' indicated in the court papers from Dr Jaber, who now lives in the Middle East. In these papers, the judge said the doctor made it clear he had no intention of participating, 'other than from the sidelines' with grenades to attack the IMC, the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and former colleagues. Last February, the former deputy state pathologist was found guilty by a Medical Council fitness-to-practise committee of professional misconduct relating to his post-mortem findings in two cases. READ MORE The allegations against Dr Jaber related to post-mortem findings and related evidence that the Saudi-born pathologist gave to two cases before the Central Criminal Court. One of the cases collapsed and a murder conviction was quashed in the other. Both outcomes were due to the pathologist's testimony. The fitness-to-practise committee ruled that certain allegations of both professional misconduct and poor professional performance made against Dr Jaber were proven following a medical inquiry, held over six days between October 2024 and January 2025. Dr Jaber served as deputy state pathologist between 2009 and 2013 when he resigned in controversial circumstances amid reports of significant disagreements with the then chief state pathologist, Prof Marie Cassidy. In the High Court on Monday, Sinead Taaffe, of Fieldfisher solicitors for the Medical Council, said the fitness-to-practise committee was aware that the removal from the register is the most serious sanction. She said it did not consider Dr Jaber as having any insight into his own conduct and regarded himself the victim. The inquiry arose following a complaint to the Medical Council in August 2015. The pathologist was accused of giving evidence in a murder trial that blunt force trauma which caused fractures of the deceased's jaw had contributed to his death. This concerned the trial of Michael Furlong for the murder of his friend, Patrick Connors (37) in Enniscorthy, Co Wexford in April 2011. The committee, the High Court heard, was satisfied there was no pathological evidence to justify such a finding. The trial of Mr Furlong collapsed in 2013 following the dramatic intervention of Prof Cassidy when she notified the DPP of her concerns about Dr Jaber's evidence and the fact that his post-mortem report in the case had not been peer reviewed. The High Court subsequently prohibited the holding of a retrial. Separately, the fitness-to-practise committee found there was no pathological evidence to justify Dr Jaber's finding in a post-mortem report that the death of Francis Greene (48) at Steamboat Quay in Limerick in November 2009 was due to asphyxia and the related evidence he subsequently provided in court. The victim's badly decomposed body had been immersed in water for two months before being discovered. Gardaí believed Mr Greene had been forced into the River Shannon and died by drowning but Dr Jaber's evidence suggested he had been strangled before he ended up in the water. Kevin Coughlan of Avondale Drive, Greystones, Limerick had his conviction for the murder of Mr Greene quashed by the Court of Appeal in June 2015. However, he was subsequently convicted of Mr Greene's manslaughter at a retrial and sentenced to eight years in prison. The fitness-to-practise committee said it was 'totally inappropriate and unjustifiable' for Dr Jaber to have made such 'a definitive and unequivocal' finding about the cause of death in 'the complete absence' of any supporting evidence. It also ruled that he had failed to demonstrate he appreciated the fundamental difference between bite marks and tooth indentations as well as incorrectly equating hanging with strangulation in his evidence. Costs were awarded to the IMC.
Irish Times
10 hours ago
- Irish Times
Dáil is expected to pass Bill reforming defamation law this week
The Dáil is expected to pass the remaining stages of the Defamation Bill this week, clearing the path for the legislation to proceed to the Seanad. A number of government and opposition amendments are to be considered in the Dáil, with Sinn Féin seeking to have the Bill amended to allow the retention of juries in defamation cases. Abolishing juries in these cases is one of the key provisions of the Bill and is a move long sought by media organisations keen to reduce the cost and length of defamation actions. Juries in personal injury cases were abolished many years ago. The Bill also introduces protections for media organisations against strategic lawsuits against public participation – or 'Slapps' – which are defamation actions taken by usually rich or powerful individuals designed to intimidate media organisations in their coverage of such people. READ MORE The amendments introduce a power for the High Court to award damages against a party which takes a 'Slapp' action against a media outlet. Having been initiated by the previous government, the Bill was reintroduced to the Dáil order paper in spring and is now expected to passed by the Oireachtas this year. The Bill also contains measures to reduce legal costs in defamation cases as well as provisions designed to make it less costly for plaintiffs to obtain the identity of people who post defamatory content online. There is also a new defence for retailers subjected to defamation claims for challenging people on whether they have paid before leaving a shop. Sinn Féin amendments seeking the retention of juries in defamation cases were previously put during the committee stage of the bill in April, but were rejected by the Government. When opposition TDs pointed out to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan that he had cautioned against the abolition of juries when he was a backbencher in the last government, Mr O'Callaghan said 'one of the consequences of membership of a political party is the need for compromise'. Mr O'Callaghan said he supported the Fianna Fáil manifesto of the last general election supporting the proposed legislation. 'A programme for government was agreed between the two parties. I am a minister in that government,' he said. 'I am bound, because of the principles of compromise and collective responsibility, to give effect to what was agreed in the programme for government.'
Irish Times
13 hours ago
- Irish Times
UK court rejects case against lawfulness of Britain exporting fighter jet parts to Israel
Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel , despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza , was lawful, London's High Court ruled on Monday. Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank , had taken legal action against Britain's department for business and trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The UK had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law in Israel's military campaign. But Britain did not suspend licences for F-35 components, which go into a pool of spare parts which Israel can use on its existing F-35 jets. READ MORE Britain said suspending those licences would disrupt a global programme that supplies parts for the aircraft, with a knock-on impact on international security. It said taking such action could 'undermine US confidence in the UK and Nato'. Al-Haq had argued at a hearing last month that the decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention, but the High Court dismissed the group's challenge. Judges Stephen Males and Karen Steyn said the case was about whether the court could rule that Britain must withdraw from the international F-35 programme, which was 'a matter for the executive . . . not for the courts'. According to Gaza officials, Israel's bombardment has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians while displacing almost the whole population of more than two million and plunging the enclave into a humanitarian crisis. Israel launched its campaign in response to the October 2023 attack in which Hamas-led fighters killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages. The court said Britain's business minister Jonathan Reynolds was 'faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue'. Al-Haq said it was disappointed with the ruling, but that its legal challenge had contributed to Britain's partial suspension of arms export licences in 2024. Jennine Walker, a lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network which supported Al-Haq's case, said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London: 'We are currently analysing the judgment for grounds of appeal. 'This is a regrettable setback after such a long battle for Al-Haq and all the Palestinians who have been following the case. However, this is not the end.' Charity Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch also criticised the ruling. A British government spokesperson said: 'This [ruling] shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.' – Reuters (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2025
