Palestine Action ban would have free speech ‘chilling effect', appeal court told
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Leading KC raises concerns over accused rights in rape trials
However, Mr Ross believes that he should draw attention to the situation for fear of the impact of silence upon the delivery of justice. "We have reached the stage where the victim has lied about things and the court has not allowed the defence to put that before the jury. "How can it be said that someone has had a fair trial when it's been proved that the complainer lied about something important in the course of the inquiry and that was not allowed to be introduced as evidence?" he told The Herald. "There are serious concerns that people are not getting a fair trial when they are not being given the opportunity to provide evidence which might support their innocence". He added: "The lawyers who are taking on these rape and sexual assault cases tend to be less experienced, more junior members of the bar. It's difficult for them to come out and make a claim of this type. "They have their whole career in front of them. At some point they might want to go for a role as a sheriff or a judge, and they will understandably be concerned that if they speak out or are seen to be publicly critical of the criminal justice system that will damage their chances. "But many many lawyers are raising the matter with me. When you hear a lawyer complaining in court about some decision that has gone against them, 90% of the time it's this issue. It is a massive concern." READ MORE: The situation revolves around what evidence is allowed to be heard in open court before a jury. Sometimes known as "rape shield" laws, specific provisions to regulate the use of sexual history evidence were first introduced in Scotland by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. These provisions were later repeated in sections 274 and 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. In response to concerns about their operation, the provisions in the 1995 Act were replaced by new sections 274 and 275 in 2002. The High Court in Glasgow (Image: PA) The provisions are designed to protect complainers giving evidence from irrelevant, intrusive and often distressing questioning. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 Act were intended to protect complainers in sexual offence trials from inappropriate questioning about their sexual history and wider character and lifestyle when giving evidence in court. In particular, they were designed to discourage the use of evidence seen as of limited relevance, where the primary purpose of the evidence is to undermine the credibility of the complainer or divert attention from the issues that require to be determined at trial. There are strict rules over what evidence can be heard in rape trials (Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto) However, Mr Ross said the manner in which the rules have been interpreted by the court has been problematic with debate centring on what evidence is judged to be relevant or not. An application to lead evidence of the type struck at by Section 274 must be made at a preliminary hearing – almost always before full preparation for the trial had has been completed - putting the defence at a huge disadvantage. "In the 1985 act the thinking was - why should you be allowed to ask the woman about sex with another man or sex with the accused on a different occasion but in 2002 the scope was extended to include non sexual behaviour," he said. He continued: "At the preliminary hearing you might not have all the case papers, won't know for sure what the complainer is likely to say in evidence, as it might be a year before the trial. "The need for an application within a strict time limit made it very difficult for defence lawyers." He said further restrictions to rules over the admissibility of evidence had since been made in case law. "In short it became extremely difficult to know what you were allowed to ask," said Mr Ross. "Every day you were hearing examples of people saying they thought a piece of evidence was relevant but the judge has ruled that it would not be allowed. "Defendants would be going around with messages, photographs, things they thought would prove them to be innocent and the judges would not allow them to tell the jury about those pieces of exculpatory evidence." Mr Ross went on to say a number of Scottish rape cases relating to the admissibility of evidence were currently before the Supreme Court having had appeals against conviction dismissed. A number of Scottish cases are before the Supreme Court for consideration. (Image: Dan Kitwood) In one of the cases the victim alleged that the accused had raped her when she was 13, claiming she became pregnant and given birth to a child. However, there was no evidence that she had become pregnant or given birth - a matter that the accused wanted to present to the jury. His lawyer had taken the view that it was extremely unlikely that the trial court would allow such evidence to be presented – and the Scottish appeal court agreed with that assessment and refused his appeal. Mr Ross said a second case at the Supreme Court revolved around a man convicted of rape following a work night out. The man was with the woman, whom he supervised, in a pub where both were drinking. "There was apparently CCTV evidence showing the complainer beckoning the accused into a disabled toilet where they had sex," said Mr Ross. "They both later left the bar, got a taxi to his house and woke up next morning in bed together." The woman alleged she was raped. "He was interviewed by police and explained that events at the pub exactly as they had been captured by the CCTV. "He was then charged with rape in the disabled pub toilet and rape in the house." "But the prosecutor became aware that the judge may allow CCTV evidence from the pub, so dropped the pub charge, with the result that the defence was not allowed to lead evidence about what had happened in the pub. His account of what happened in the pub was entirely supported by the CCTV evidence. "It supported his credibility but he wasn't allowed to put the CCTV evidence before the jury as the court ruled that it wasn't relevant to the charges at his house." Mr Ross went on to say that he didn't "accept there is a low conviction rate for rape or sexual assault" as there is a lack of relevant data. He addition he suggested that it was misleading to compare conviction in rape cases rapes to those in other types of crime such as murder. "In a murder case there might be 15 sources of evidence, from eyewitnesses, DNA, finger prints in murder cases, while in a rape case just there is very often only one source of evidence - namely the person making the complaint. "So it's entirely unsurprising that there are lower conviction rates for rape than murder." A spokesperson for Rape Crisis Scotland said: 'We wish Thomas Ross KC would express equal concern about ensuring justice for survivors of sexual violence. 'The conviction for rape cases involving a single complainer is only 24%. The overall conviction rate for all crime is 86%. Too many women are being completely let down by the Scottish criminal justice system. "We continue to hear from women about how distressing their treatment is at the hands of some defence lawyers.' Mr Ross responded: "I've met many women who feel completely let by the Scottish criminal justice system. I've met many men who feel completely let down by the criminal justice system too - including men who believe that the court's interpretation of section 275 deprived them of a fair trial. "With so many people feeling completely let down by the system - maybe its time to have another look at the way it operates." A spokeswoman for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service said it would be inappropriate for the Judicial Office to comment on Mr Ross's personal views. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Everyone has the right to a fair trial and to appeal against a conviction or sentence. There are well-established rules on what evidence can be led in sexual offences trials, and clear routes to challenge how these are applied.'
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Cooper orders ‘crackdown' on suspected illegal working for delivery apps
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has ordered a nationwide immigration 'enforcement crackdown' which the Government says will target illegal working in the gig economy. Officers will carry out checks in hotspots across the country where they suspect asylum seekers are working as delivery riders without permission. It comes after Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat said they would ramp up facial verification and fraud checks over the coming months after conversations with ministers. Last week the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, claimed in a post on X to have found evidence of people working illegally for the food delivery firms during a visit to a hotel used to house asylum seekers. On Saturday, the Home Office said anyone caught 'flagrantly abusing the system in this way' will face having state support discontinued, whether entitlement to accommodation or payments. 'Strategic, intel-driven activity will bring together officers across the UK and place an increased focus on migrants suspected of working illegally whilst in taxpayer-funded accommodation or receiving financial support,' the Home Office said. 'The law is clear that asylum seekers are only entitled to this support if they would otherwise be destitute.' Businesses who illegally employ people will also face fines of up to £60,000 per worker, director disqualifications and potential prison sentences of up to five years. Asylum seekers in the UK are normally barred from work while their claim is being processed, though permission can be applied for after a year of waiting. It comes as the Government struggles with its pledge to 'smash the gangs' of people-smugglers facilitating small boat crossings in the English Channel, which have reached record levels this year. Some 20,600 people have made the journey so far in 2025, up 52% on the same period in 2024. Ms Cooper said: 'Illegal working undermines honest business and undercuts local wages, the British public will not stand for it and neither will this Government. 'Often those travelling to the UK illegally are sold a lie by the people-smuggling gangs that they will be able to live and work freely in this country, when in reality they end up facing squalid living conditions, minimal pay and inhumane working hours. 'We are surging enforcement action against this pull factor, on top of returning 30,000 people with no right to be here and tightening the law through our Plan for Change.' Home Office director of enforcement, compliance and crime, Eddy Montgomery, said: 'This next step of co-ordinated activity will target those who seek to work illegally in the gig economy and exploit their status in the UK. 'That means if you are found to be working with no legal right to do so, we will use the full force of powers available to us to disrupt and stop this abuse. There will be no place to hide.' Deliveroo has said the firm takes a 'zero tolerance approach' to abuse on the platform and that despite measures put in place over the last year, 'criminals continue to seek new ways to abuse the system'. An Uber Eats spokesperson has said they will continue to invest in tools to detect illegal work and remove fraudulent accounts, while Just Eat says it is committed to strengthening safeguards 'in response to these complex and evolving challenges.' Responding to the announcement, Mr Philp said: 'It shouldn't take a visit to an asylum hotel by me as shadow home secretary to shame the Government into action.' He added: 'The Government should investigate if there is wrongdoing by the delivery platforms and if there is a case to answer, they should be prosecuted. 'This is a very serious issue because illegal working is a pull factor for illegal immigration into the UK – people smugglers actually advertise it.'
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Some consequences of Palestine Action ban ‘overstated', says High Court judge
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from banning the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to grant the temporary block, finding there was a 'strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'. Lawyers for Palestine Action will now make a last-minute bid at the Court of Appeal to challenge this decision, as the ban is expected to come into force at midnight. In a 26-page judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that 'some of the consequences feared by the claimant and others who have given evidence are overstated' if the temporary block was refused, but a later challenge against the ban succeeded. He continued: 'It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of Palestine Action prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law. 'They will remain legally entitled to do so in private conversations, in print, on social media and at protests.' He added: 'It follows that it is hyperbole to talk of the claimant or others being 'gagged' in this respect, as the claimant has alleged. 'They could not incur criminal liability based on their past association with a group which was not proscribed at the time. 'That said, there is no doubt that there will be serious consequences if the order comes into effect immediately and interim relief is refused.' The judge later said that if people choose to continue to express support for Palestine Action post-proscription, they may face criminal consequences, adding: 'This, however, is the intended effect of the order. It is how it achieves its aim of disrupting the activities of the proscribed organisation.' The proposal to ban the group was approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords earlier this week and would make membership and support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Some 81 organisations are already proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Hamas, al Qaida and National Action. At the High Court hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, asked the court to suspend the 'ill-considered' and 'authoritarian abuse of statutory power' until a hearing in the wider legal challenge, due around July 21. The hearing later in July is expected to deal with whether Ms Ammori can bring a High Court challenge over the planned proscription. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the High Court there was an 'insuperable hurdle' in the bid to temporarily block the banning of the group, adding it could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Following the High Court's decision on Friday, Ms Ammori said: 'The Home Secretary is rushing through the implementation of the proscription at midnight tonight despite the fact that our legal challenge is ongoing and that she has been completely unclear about how it will be enforced, leaving the public in the dark about their rights to free speech and expression after midnight tonight when this proscription comes into effect. 'Hundreds of thousands of people across the country have expressed support for Palestine Action by joining our mailing list, following and sharing our social media content and signing petitions, and many, including iconic figures like Sally Rooney, say they will continue to declare 'we are all Palestine Action' and speak out against this preposterous proscription, demonstrating how utterly unworkable it will be.'
