High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20.
On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.
The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.
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, and are due to face trial in early 2027.
Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend.
At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an 'ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power'.
He also said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be 'far-reaching' and could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'.
Ben Watson KC, 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.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and 'preceded' the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the 'harm which would ensue' if a block was not ordered was 'insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force'.
He added that some of the 'consequences feared by the claimant' were 'overstated'.
At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court's decision, finding that there was 'no real prospect of a successful appeal'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Woman who harassed Dubai businessman who she had one-night stand with after meeting in a nightclub is facing arrest after no-show in court
A woman who was ordered to pay £25,000 damages after harassing a Dubai businessman she had a one-night stand with is facing arrest following a no-show in court. Cynthia Chia, 38, was ordered to pay the five-figure sum, for both harassment and libel, to energy trader Idowu Ogunkanmi, 44, after she launched a 'horrific' campaign of harassment and falsely accused him of raping her. She met the father of three in a London nightclub in 2015, and they had a one-night stand before Mr Ogunkanmi flew back to Dubai, where he lives and works. The High Court heard earlier this month that in the following months, Chia subjected him to a 'sustained, relentless and vindictive' campaign of harassment that lasted almost nine years. A restraining order was imposed on Chia, and she was due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court for breaching it twice, but failed to turn up. Prosecutor Rizwan Amin said: 'On March 23, Chia is alleged to have posted images of Mr Ogunkanmi on social media. 'She later spotted Mr Ogunkanmi on a street, when she approached and called him out by name, and then proceeded to insult him.' Mr Amin said the same offence happened again on May 3. Magistrate Simon Burke ordered a warrant for Chia's arrest. The High Court was told Chia falsely claimed Mr Ogunkanmi drugged her, raped her and bribed police officers to destroy evidence against him. She also made a series of untrue online posts about him. Speaking exclusively to MailOnline earlier this month, Mr Ogunkanmi said: 'When I met her she seemed perfectly normal. For someone to be that persistent for so long on a lie, I pray for her. There's definitely something wrong with her, I don't know what it is. 'I met this person for less than 12 hours, that was it... to me that's been the scariest part.' Mr Ogunkanmi says he was left 'traumatised' and 'shocked' by the allegations, explaining: 'I think she is a very hateful and troublesome person and she lied for so many years about something like that, reposting the same thing. 'There were so many accusations: rape, stealing her kids, conniving with the Met Police, getting her pregnant. It was all just baseless accusations. The accusations were beyond belief. I only ever met her once in my life. 'She probably thought I had a lot of money and was looking to extort me. Because I refused to be extorted, she started this hateful Instagram campaign on me and her friend. 'It's unbelievable that anyone could come up with these kind of things.' Mr Ogunkami says he is relieved by the legal victory but believes he should have been awarded more 'as it does not fully account for the depth of damage to my reputation and well-being'. He also said social media companies have a greater role to play, adding: 'Anyone can just go to the internet now or Instagram, create a fake post and say anything about anyone and Instagram will keep it there. I don't understand it. 'There are people who could have committed suicide. You could lose your job, you could lose your family just by someone out there creating these remarks about you.' Court documents show the pair met when Mr Ogunkanmi asked one of Ms Chia's friends, Prisca Okoye, to pass on his number to her. They partied together at the Steam Bar in the Hilton Hotel, Paddington, west London, and proceeded to have a one-night-stand at his room later that night. Mr Ogunkanmi then flew back to Dubai the following day and despite only meeting once, they stayed in contact. However, by early 2016 their relationship exploded when Ms Chia accused him of having sex with Ms Okoye which they both denied. It was at this point that Ms Chia then began to repeatedly confront Mr Ogunkanmi about allegedly having sex with her friend - including threatening to 'destroy' him and asking him to send her thousands of pounds. Mr Ogunkanmi, who admits he continued to speak to her about other matters, says he transferred her £250 which he believed was to cover her phone bill. However, the intimidating messages from Ms Chia then escalated with her threatening to tell his friends and repeatedly calling his workplace, sometimes more than 100 times a day, the court heard. Distressed by the harassment, Mr Ogunkanmi returned to London in May 2016 to report Ms Chia to the Met Police. She was arrested and quizzed over the allegations in June that year before being bailed on the condition that she did not contact him or contact his colleagues. But just six weeks later, Ms Chia texted one of his colleagues, saying Mr Ogunkanmi 'will spend the rest of his life in jail.' However, this was only the start. Mr Ogunkanmi's world would come crashing down when Ms Chia then accused him of raping her in September 2016. He returned to London for a voluntary police interview in October 2017 and was subsequently cleared when detectives told him that no further action would be taken over the rape allegation. But by January 2018, she started to bombard him with calls again before setting up multiple Instagram profiles - with names including cindylicious11 and u_smell-nice-witch - where she would post defamatory statements, the court heard. In the flurry of posts, she repeatedly accused him of being a 'rapist' and shared his name and photo publicly. She also alleged that he had paid police officers and medical staff to destroy evidence. Launching a lawsuit against Ms Chia, he claimed that the impression of the posts from a member of the public would be that he was a 'rapist' and that he had paid authorities to 'alter or destroy the evidence in the course of a criminal investigation against him.' Ms Chia continued to share defamatory posts on Instagram over several years between January 2018 and at least December 2021. On December 31, 2021, where she shared a photo of his face and claimed he had 'drugged, raped and impregnated' her. In September 2022, the harassment continued on Twitter, now X, where she repeated the allegation that he was a rapist. She then made an Instagram account with the username rapist_trying_to_avoid_justice where she again shared photos of his face and published eight defamatory posts. Amid the bombardment of false allegations, she also claimed he had abused her child, tagging the Met Police, Dubai Police and National Crime Agency. Mr Ogunkanmi sued her for defamation amid her online claims that he was a rapist, drugged her, bribed police officers and medical staff to destroy evidence, conspired to pervert the course of justice and abused her child. He said the impact 'would have on his reputation are obviously so severe as to pass the threshold of serious harm on their face'. His lawyer, Mr Symes, submitted that his client should have been awarded £120,000 for the harassment and defamation - however the judge ruled Ms Chia would only be ordered to pay £25,000. Mr Ogunkanmi also sued Ms Chia over harassment following her repeated calls to him and his workplace as well as threatening damaging messages to his family and friends. Ms Chia did not appear in court and was not represented. Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre said she 'has not engaged at all with the proceedings', which resulted in a default judgment being ordered. The judge therefore only had to rule the amount of damages to award against Ms Chia and whether any injunctive relief was required against her. Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre ruled: 'It is important for general damages in a defamation action to vindicate the Claimant's good name and it should be clear, from this judgment, that there is no truth at all in the defamatory posts. 'The fact that the Mr Ogunkanmi had a consensual sexual encounter with Ms Chia does not reflect 'a kernel of truth' and in no way justifies the horrific campaign of harassment, abuse and defamation that he has been subjected to for over nine years. 'The posts were clearly malicious which may be considered an aggravating factor and one for which a degree of compensation is due for injury to feelings. 'In light of all the circumstances of this case, weighing up the gravity of the allegations, the backdrop of years of harassment, malicious intent and a failure to engage on the part of the Defendant against the very meagre evidence of harm, particularly in this jurisdiction, and the limited distribution of the libel, I award a global figure of £25,000 in damages for both the harassment and the libel.' The court also heard that 'arising out of her obsession with Mr Ogunkanmi, she has 'physically attacked Ms Okoye several times in public'. Ms Chia was convicted of common assault in February and sentenced to 10 weeks in prison with a restraining order for five years. The judge also ruled that injunctive relief was 'justified' to protect Mr Ogunkanmi's reputation and his right to a private life. The judge added: 'It is clear that such injunctive relief is a necessary and proportionate measure to put a stop to the ongoing attacks on the Claimant.'
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Conor McGregor LOSES appeal over Nikita Hand civil rape case ruling after hairdresser awarded €248k in damages
Ms Hand was embraced by her supporters in court after the judgment was delivered DISGRACED Conor McGregor today LOST his appeal over his civil rape case after he attacked a woman in a hotel. The Irish mixed martial arts fighter, 36, was accused of "brutally raping and battering" Nikita Hand at a hotel penthouse in Dublin in December 2018. Advertisement 4 Nikita Hand, who is also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, outside the Court of Appeal this afternoon Credit: Collins Photos 4 Conor McGregor outside the High Court in Dublin Credit: Brian Lawless/PA Wire The MMA fighter, who was not present in court today, lost his appeal on all five grounds that the case was taken. Ms Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have "brutally raped and battered" her in the penthouse of the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford. During a three-week case at the High Court last November, the fighter told the court the pair had 'consensual' sex. A jury of eight women and four men found him civilly liable for assault and Ms Hand was awarded €248,603.60 in damages. Advertisement McGregor was also ordered to pay about €1.3 million in legal costs following November's trial. The fighter then launched an appeal on the basis of five grounds, intending to introduce fresh evidence to the court. He had provided affidavits by Samantha O'Reilly and her partner Steven Cummins, former neighbours of Ms Hand when she lived in Drimnagh, to the Court of Appeal. Samantha O'Reilly said she had witnessed a physical row between Ms Hand and her then-partner at about the same time of the incident at the Beacon hotel. Advertisement Ms Hand denied any altercation with her former partner and the court heard she characterised the claims from Ms O'Reilly and Ms O'Reilly's partner Steven Cummins as 'lies'. Earlier this month, McGregor's legal team dramatically withdrew that ground of appeal, saying it would no longer be relying on the material. The appeal continued on other grounds. This was that his garda interviews with "no comment" answers should not have been admitted into evidence and that the jury was asked to deliberate on an "assault" rather than "sexual assault". Advertisement HAND 'RETRAUMATISED' BY APPEAL Speaking outside court this afternoon, Ms Hand said the appeal had "retraumatised" her but she can finally "move on" following the judges' verdict today. She said: "I want to begin by thanking my legal team, the rape crisis centre and the three judges who delivered the decision today. "I'm also deeply grateful for everyone who supported me, those who believed in me and stood by my side throughout this long and painful journey. "This appeal has retraumatised me over and over again. Being forced to relive what happened has had a huge impact on me. Advertisement "To every survivor out there, I know how hard it is but please don't be silenced. You deserve to be heard. You also deserve justice. "Today I can finally move on and try to heal." REASONS FOR APPEAL DISMISSAL Meanwhile, McGregor's co-defendant has also lost his appeal against the trial judge's decision not to award him his legal costs. During the same trial in November, the jury did not find James Lawrence had assaulted Ms Hand at the hotel. Advertisement However, the trial judge decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs. His legal team challenged whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Delivering their judgment on Thursday, the three judges of the court - Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath - agreed to dismiss both appeals in their entirety. Reading out the judgment on behalf of the three-judge panel, Mr Justice O'Moore summarised the grounds for appeal before explaining the Court of Appeal's reasons for dismissing all five grounds. Advertisement He said: "I therefore dismiss the appeal in its entirety." Ms Hand was embraced by her supporters in court after the judgment was delivered. Neither McGregor nor Mr Lawrence were present in court. 4 Ms Hand speaking to the media outside the High Court in Dublin after the jury returned with their verdicts in the civil trial against McGregor Credit: Brian Lawless/PA Wire Advertisement
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Irish court rejects McGregor appeal in civil rape case
DUBLIN, July 30 (Reuters) - Martial arts fighter Conor McGregor on Thursday lost his appeal against a civil jury's finding that he raped a woman in a hotel room in 2018, with Ireland's Court of Appeal rejecting his appeal in its entirety. The plaintiff, Nikita Hand, alleged that McGregor sexually assaulted her on December 9, 2018. A jury in Ireland's High Court last November found in favour of Hand and ordered McGregor to pay her nearly 250,000 euros ($285,250) in damages. McGregor, 36, denied the allegation and said he had "fully consensual sex" with Hand. He also denied causing bruising to the plaintiff. In the appeal heard earlier this month, lawyers for McGregor said the judge erred in directing the jury to decide whether he "assaulted" rather than "sexually assaulted" the victim. Judge Brian O'Moore said on Thursday that the appeal court had no doubt the overall effect of the trial judge's charge was to tell them the central allegation by Hand against McGregor was that he had raped her. "The jury found as a fact that Mr. McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand by raping her," O'Moore said, reading out the ruling. McGregor's legal team had also argued that the judge should not have allowed a line of questioning during cross-examination regarding McGregor's "no comment" responses in a police interview. That ground was also rejected. Hand embraced a number of people beside her after the appeal court ruling. "To every survivor out there I know how hard it is but please don't be silenced ... You deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice. Today, I can finally move on and try to heal," Hand said in a statement outside the court. Hand told the high court in November that she and a friend made contact with McGregor, whom she knew, after a work Christmas party. She said they were driven by McGregor to a party in a penthouse room of a Dublin hotel where drugs and alcohol were consumed. She said McGregor, who was not in court on Thursday, took her to a bedroom in the penthouse and sexually assaulted her. Hand's lawyer told the jury that when she was referred to a sexual assault treatment unit the day after the alleged assault, a doctor was so concerned that he directed that photographs be taken of her injuries.
