Bid to temporarily block Palestine Action ban to be heard at High Court
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, is seeking to bring a legal challenge against the Home Office over Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The motion could become law as early as this weekend once it has been signed off by Ms Cooper, which would make membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The move was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage.
At a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Chamberlain is due to decide whether to grant 'interim relief' to Ms Ammori, which would temporarily block the legislation from coming into effect at midnight on Saturday as currently planned.
The hearing is due to begin at 10.30am at the Royal Courts of Justice, with a further hearing to decide whether Ms Ammori will be given the green light to challenge the Government's decision expected to be held later in July.
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'.
MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday.
Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident.
They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
They were remanded into custody and will appear at the Old Bailey on July 18.
Counter Terrorism Policing South East said on Wednesday that a 41-year-old woman arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender had been released on bail until September 19, and a 23-year-old man who was arrested has been released without charge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
8 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The move is to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block, however lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening. Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws would make membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA) In his decision refusing the temporary block, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: '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.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, said that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action. 'He had evidence before him of the evidence on possible employment rights and education rights and the right to liberty and he failed properly to determine that the balance of convenience fell in the claimant's favour.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. The barrister added: 'He failed to consider that the proscription regime was not necessary in a democratic society, because it wasn't proportionate to the aims sought, because there were alternative methods available to prevent the serious damage to property that was an issue.' Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' which was 'all the more impressive given the time constraints'. He added that the judge 'was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did'. The barrister said: 'The judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.' Mr Watson also said that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,' he added. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, said that they hoped to give a judgment on the appeal shortly after 10pm. Baroness Carr said: 'We will have a decision for you before midnight.'
The Sun
13 minutes ago
- The Sun
Mum says she's been ‘given 2 months to move out' after row with ‘idiot' landlord – but trolls say ‘it's not YOUR house'
A STRESSED mum has revealed her landlord has given her just two months to move out after the pair had an argument. The mum, who simply goes by The Maiden on social media, took to TikTok for some advice after she explained she didn't have enough money to move. 2 2 However, after sharing her story some cruel trolls expressed little sympathy for the mum, who was facing uprooting her entire life. She claimed she received the two months notice because of an argument with her "idiot" landlord. "The landlord didn't fix some sockets in our kitchen in reported in March, he turned up in June and wondered why I was angry," she explained in the viral clip. According to Citizen's Advice, after formally notifying your landlord of issues they should respond in a reasonable timeframe, so it's no wonder the mum wasn't happy with how slow things were moving. Not only that, the mum said she's been living in the home with her son for seven years, so she'd well and truly settled in. "I've just got the boy into a school right by this house and now he's given me two months to move," she added. According to the mum, during her seven years in the home she'd never been late with rent and had in fact always paid three days early. But none of that mattered to the harsh landlord, who decided to chuck the mum and her son out. Things went from bad to worse for the mum because she admitted she wouldn't be able to gather enough money for a deposit for another rented house in the timeframe given, leaving her in limbo. Luckily, many people offered support in the comment section, with one urging the mum to take the landlord to court. "Don't leave before the bailiffs come," one person commented. "This is a revenge eviction and unlawful," a second said. "That's no good reason, truly. Go to Citizens Advice," someone else suggested. Meanwhile, other renters said they found themselves in similar situations with their own dodgy landlords. "Ours hiked our rent over 40% because we pushed for repairs to damp and mould," one said. "We went through the same last year and had been in the house eight years," another revealed. But others weren't so kind to the struggling mum, as some said she had no reason to complain, since the house isn't technically hers. "There's two sides to every story," one person slammed. "I would like to know why you renters think it's ok for your landlord to be out of pocket," a second wrote. "It's not your house, to be fair," another chimed in.
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I shouldn't have gone to PMQs, says Reeves
Rachel Reeves has admitted she regrets attending prime minister's questions after she was seen in tears on the Government front bench. The Chancellor said she had been dealing with a 'personal issue' when her bottom lip shook and tears ran down her face during a moment of distress in Parliament on Wednesday. Ms Reeves was speaking after she made a surprise appearance alongside Sir Keir Starmer to unveil the Government's 10-year plan for the NHS. In an interview with The Guardian, Ms Reeves said she regretted going into PMQs after a 'tough day at the office', but hoped people 'could relate' to her distress. She said: 'In retrospect, I probably wished I hadn't gone in... But you know, it is what it is.' The Leeds West and Pudsey MP said she never thought about resigning despite backbench anger over the way she had handled the economy, adding: 'I didn't work that hard to then quit.' A backbench rebellion saw the government forced to drop key welfare cuts, which has left the Chancellor with a £5 billion black hole to fill. She has insisted she is 'totally' up for the job of Chancellor and asserted that she and the Prime Minister remain united. Ms Reeves said: 'People can see that Keir and me are a team.' Sir Keir stood by his Chancellor in the aftermath, telling BBC Radio 4 Today's Nick Robinson: 'She is going to be Chancellor into the next election and for many years afterwards.' He was quick to deny any political link to her tears, insisting it was a personal matter, saying: 'I'm not going to go into the personal matter of a colleague.' Labour insiders have claimed that the Chancellor has made herself 'unsackable' after the public tears. A government source said that Sir Keir 'seems to have tied himself to her' after her tears, which triggered a £3 billion market sell-off and crash in the pound's value. 'I thought at the beginning of Wednesday she would go, then thought it was confirmed when I saw her crying at PMQs but then she didn't,' said the source. Another source said Ms Reeves had enjoyed an 'outpouring of sympathy' over an incident that was still 'inescapably linked to the political facts' of the welfare rebellion. A third added that being pictured distraught on television had 'shored up her position'. In a turbulent week for the government, Ms Reeves refused to rule out tax rises in the autumn budget, saying: 'I'm not going to, because it would be irresponsible to do that. 'We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement. 'So we'll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.'
