Palestine Action ban would be ‘authoritarian abuse' of power, High Court told
The move is set to come into force at midnight after being 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.
The Home Office is opposing bids to delay the ban from becoming law, and the potential launch of a legal challenge against the decision.
At a hearing on Friday, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, told the London court: 'This is the first time in our history that a direct action civil disobedience group, which does not advocate for violence, has been sought to be proscribed as terrorists.'
The barrister said that his client had been 'inspired' by a long history of direct action in the UK, 'from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid activists, to Iraq war activists'.
Quoting Ms Ammori, the barrister continued that the group had 'never encouraged harm to any person at all' and that its goal 'is to put ourselves in the way of the military machine'.
He continued: 'We ask you, in the first instance, to suspend until July 21 what we say is an ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power which is alien to the basic tradition of the common law and is contrary to the Human Rights Act.'
The barrister later said that the Home Office 'has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now'.
He added: 'The discretion to proscribe an organisation must be exercised with respect to the central concern of the Act, which plainly is not to simply proscribe any organisation which fits the definition.'
Mr Husain later said that to proscribe an organisation, the Home Secretary 'has got to believe that the organisation is concerned in terrorism'.
'If you get isolated conduct associated with Palestine Action that meets the statutory definition, that is not enough because you have got to look at the organisation as a whole,' he said.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that if the ban came into effect the harm would be 'far-reaching', could cause 'irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public', including causing some to 'self-censor'.
The barrister named Normal People author Sally Rooney, who lives abroad and 'fears the ramifications for her, for her work, for her books, for her programmes' if she shows support for Palestine Action.
'Is the Prime Minister going to denounce her, an Irish artist, as a supporter of a proscribed organisation?'
'Will that have ramifications for her with the BBC, etc?' Ms Ghralaigh asked.
Mr Justice Chamberlain previously said that if he decided to temporarily block the ban, he could do that with either an 'interim declaration' or by making an injunction 'requiring the Secretary of State to make an order'.
Friday's hearing comes after an estimated £7 million worth of damage was caused to two Voyager planes at RAF Brize Norton on June 20, in an action claimed by Palestine Action.
The Home Secretary, Yvette 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'.
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.
He said: 'The process or assessment on the basis of which that proscription decision was made preceded that, in March.'
Police said that the incident caused around £7 million worth of damage, with four people charged in connection with the incident.
Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22, are accused of 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.
They were remanded into custody after appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court and will appear at the Old Bailey on July 18.
The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain will conclude later on Friday, with the High Court judge expected to give his decision at the end of the hearing.
A further hearing to decide whether Ms Ammori will be given the green light to challenge the decision to ban Palestine Action is expected to be heard later this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
22 minutes ago
- ITV News
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.' Mr Philp also said women and girls were being put at risk because deliveries were being made to their homes by people 'from nationalities we know have very high rates of sex offending', without specifying which nationalities he was referring to.
The Herald Scotland
24 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
The move to ban the organisation 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. Proscribing the group under anti-terror laws makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison (Lucy North/PA) In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day 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. Home Secretary Yvette 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. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday (Lucy North/PA) In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge 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, told the Court of Appeal 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.' 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'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
South Wales Guardian
29 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation 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. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day 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. Home Secretary Yvette 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. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge 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, told the Court of Appeal 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.' 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'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
