Friday briefing: The court case trying to stop Palestine Action being designated a terrorist group
The legislation is the result of Cooper's decision to proscribe Palestine Action. Today, the high court will hear a case brought by co-founder Huda Ammori asking for a temporary block on the order. If it fails, a group which pursues disruptive direct action aimed at buildings, equipment, and institutions rather than violence will be designated a terrorist entity for the first time.
Cooper says that Palestine Action must be banned because it attacks the UK's defence industry, which is 'vital to the nation's national security'. For today's newsletter, I spoke to Martha Spurrier, a human rights barrister and former director of Liberty, about a new frontier in the UK's view of the line between disruptive protest and menacing force.
This is my last newsletter for a while – I'm going on paternity leave, ahead of the imminent arrival of our, er, second edition. Aamna will be with you from Monday, and I'll be back in the autumn. Here are the headlines.
UK politics | The MP Zarah Sultana, who was suspended from Labour last year, has said she will 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Jeremy Corbyn. But Corbyn, who has not yet publicly committed to establishing a formal party, is understood to be frustrated at Sultana's unilateral announcement and reluctant to take on the title of leader.
Diogo Jota | Jürgen Klopp and Cristiano Ronaldo led the tributes from across the football world to Diogo Jota after the 28-year-old Liverpool and Portugal forward was killed in a car accident in Spain. Jota's brother, André, also died in the crash in the province of Zamora.
Middle East | Israel has escalated its offensive in Gaza before imminent talks about a ceasefire, with warships and artillery launching one of the deadliest and most intense bombardments in the devastated Palestinian territory for many months. In all, about 300 people may have been killed this week and thousands more injured, officials said.
US politics | The US House of Representatives narrowly passed Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill on Thursday. The 'big beautiful bill' makes sweeping cuts to safety net programs but adds trillions to the national debt through major tax cuts and spending increases on immigration enforcement and the military.
UK politics | Rachel Reeves said she is 'cracking on with the job' of chancellor after her she was seen visibly distressed in the Commons on Wednesday. Speaking after a public show of unity alongside Keir Starmer at the launch of the NHS 10-year plan, she said she had been upset over a 'personal issue'.
Yvette Cooper announced the decision to proscribe Palestine Action a few days after activists from the group broke into RAF Brize Norton and spray painted two military planes red.
The home secretary called that incident 'disgraceful', and said it was part of a 'long history' of criminal damage that has 'increased in frequency and severity'. She said that the attacks had done millions of pounds worth of damage and sparked panic among bystanders, who had been 'subjected to violence'. But she did not suggest that Palestine Action is a group devoted to violence as the mechanism for securing its political aims, because it isn't.
The proscription order was voted through parliament this week – but doesn't come into force until Saturday. Here's what you need to know.
What's at stake in today's hearing?
At the high court today, Huda Ammori will seek an interim order from the judge on the case, Martin Chamberlain, preventing Cooper's decision from taking effect until a court makes a decision on a judicial review. It is not a full examination of the substantive issues raised by the case, Martha Spurrier said. 'It will probably be focused on questions of process: does the complainant understand why the order was made? Has she been given the underlying evidence and the reasons? Has the process been fair, and have the right people been consulted?
'Part of it will be about creating the legal mood music for the judge,' she added. 'This has all happened very fast, and the level of the debate has not really been proportionate to the seriousness and novelty of the change, and so they will hope that the judge will find it more attractive to press pause and ventilate the issues thoroughly in court in a few weeks time.'
The government, for its part, is likely to argue that the threat posed by Palestine Action is so serious and immediate that the UK's national security requires an instant response. If they succeed, the order will take effect on Saturday and place Palestine Action alongside the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaida, and the neo-Nazi group National Action.
Here are some of the consequences. (For more detail, see Netpol's useful breakdown.)
Membership or encouraging others to support the group will become a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Informal expressions of support, including through clothes and banners, will become a criminal offence that could attract a six-month prison sentence. (None of this would apply retrospectively, and challenging or protesting the ban itself would still be allowed.)
Organising or attending meetings of as few as three people would be banned along with fundraising or providing logistical support. Payment platforms would face investigation if they facilitated donations.
Intelligence services and police would not be granted new powers of surveillance and infiltration directly, but proscription would likely increase resources flowing to monitoring suspected members of the group and might strengthen the case for warrants.
Can the proscripton order still be overturned if the government wins today?
If the government prevails, that is not the end of the story – but the route to overturning the ban becomes significantly harder. 'The minute the order is effective it is strengthened by being the status quo,' Spurrier said. 'The deference shown to the government on national security issues is enormous.'
Should the case enter the appeals process, the first route is to the home secretary, whose view seems fairly predictable. After that it enters the legal system – but rather than being heard in open court, the case might end up in closed hearings, where Palestine Action would be represented by special advocates under severe limits on what they can share with their clients.
For that to happen, the government would have to demonstrate that it has evidence which presents a national security risk to share publicly. If they succeed, the challenge for Palestine Action becomes incredibly steep, because they will only hear the parts of the case against them that have been agreed by the court not to present a national security risk.
'You can't answer the specific allegations, whether by saying I wasn't there on that date, or if you think our modus operandi is X or Y I can prove that it's not,' Spurrier said. 'It's the special advocate's job to make the strongest case they can in the absence of their client being able to give them instructions – but fundamentally they are working with both hands tied behind their back.'
Is this a new frontier in the definition of terrorism?
In the 1990s, Greenpeace was involved in a number of radical direct actions, like occupying the Brent Spar oil platform so it couldn't be disposed of in the sea, and destroying a field of genetically-modified maize. When the terrorism bill under which the Palestine Action decision has been made was going through parliament in 1999, Jack Straw, the home secretary at the time, dealt with the question of whether Greenpeace could be caught in the definition.
'I make it clear that the new definition will not catch the vast majority of so-called domestic activist groups,' Straw said. 'To respond to a recent example, I know of no evidence whatever that Greenpeace is involved in any activity that would fall remotely under the scope of this measure.'
'I don't think there's any evidence that parliament's intention was that groups like this would be caught by the definition of the terrorism act,' Spurrier said. 'This is the first time where the primary accusation is of property damage and not harm to people.'
That obviously opens the way to wider applications in an era where direct action – often over the climate crisis – has become a major political issue, she added. 'It's really unclear to me what the principled distinction would be if Just Stop Oil began another wave of damage to property. There would surely be at the very least a political conversation about whether they should be proscribed.'
Crucially, there are already plenty of laws in place for which members of groups like Palestine Action can be prosecuted for criminal damage – and which do not involve imposing the draconian restrictions of proscription. That is part of a wider political shift in the definition of acceptable protest, Spurrier said.
'I remember giving evidence to MPs about this a few years ago – and it was so noticeable that the fault line, which had always been peaceful or not peaceful, had moved – and suddenly it was disruptive or not disruptive. I had MPs saying to me that if it got in the way of the school run surely it should be banned. So there has been a paradigm shift.'
What will it mean in practice?
If the ban goes ahead, 'I don't expect you'll see white grannies being carted away for carrying a Palestine Action sign,' Spurrier said. 'They will be astute in who they arrest and who they prosecute. But you will see communities of colour bearing the brunt of it in the way they always do. And there will be a chilling effect – people who can't afford to be arrested because they will lose their job or they are just frightened by the prospect, simply won't show up.'
There are reasons to worry about the broader consequences, including how the ban might interact with a bill going through parliament seeking to criminalise face coverings at protests and expanding the use of facial recognition. It might also lead to children being referred to the authorities under the Prevent scheme if they tell a teacher that their parents support the group, Spurrier said. 'There are so many pieces of architecture that can sweep people up for things that aren't criminal acts but speak to some kind of intention – and then you're in the dragnet.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
With all that in mind, it may seem extraordinary that the legislation passed the House of Commons this week by 385 votes to 26. 'I was really disappointed,' Spurrier said. 'But, whether you're talking about protest or asylum or criminal justice, the prevailing view is that a hardened anti-rights, anti-rule of law stance is almost a centrist position. So I was surprised that the numbers were quite so low. But I was never under the illusion that it would meet with serious resistance.'
Holloman Lake, a 1965 wastewater pond in New Mexico, was a wildlife oasis until researchers tested strange shoreline foam and uncovered the devastating impact of forever chemicals on the ecosystem. Aamna
A year after winning the election, Labour is at a low ebb, Polly Toynbee writes. It is time to be honest about the need for significant tax rises, she says – and to 'remind citizens that their taxes go to things everyone values most'. Archie
A jury has acquitted Sean 'Diddy' Combs of sex trafficking, convicting him only of transporting male prostitutes. The case hinged on consent: the women said no; he said yes. The jury sided with him, cementing what feminist Moira Donegan calls the #MeToo backlash era. Aamna
Ahead of the first date of the Oasis reunion tour tonight, I enjoyed Simon Armitage's tribute: as they return to the stage, 'fans will be back on each other's shoulders or arm in arm, singing gnomic phrases and occasional nonsense, united by some irresistible bond.' Archie
To save time, people brush their teeth in the shower or wear slip-on shoes. Are these 'life hacks' clever conveniences, or a depressing sign of how overstretched, overworked and overwhelmed we've all become? Aamna
Football | 'It is impossible not to feel a deep sense of pain, sadness and shared heartbreak at news of the sudden death of Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva,' Barney Ronay writes. He was 'the kind of footballer who barely seems to leave a dent in the grass, who, for all the tactical match-smarts seems still to be playing the same endless teenage game.'
Tennis | The British No 1 Jack Draper was taught a grand slam lesson by the veteran Marin Cilic, losing 4-6, 3-6, 6-1, 4-6 in the second round at Wimbledon. Iga Świątek went about her business almost unnoticed as she defeated Caty McNally 5-7, 6-2, 6-1 to reach the third round.
Football | It took under 90 seconds for Esther González to score the first goal for Spain against Portugal in the Women's Euros, and then they came quickly, finishing up at 5-0. Italy defeated Belgium 1-0 with Arianna Caruso's stunning, curling first-half goal.
The Guardian splashes on 'Hundreds killed as Israel steps up Gaza strikes despite ceasefire hope.' The Times leads with 'NHS app to give patients a 'doctor in your pocket',' while the Mail has 'The doctor in your pocket will see you now.' The FT leads on 'Big asset managers piled in to gilts as markets dipped during Reeves crisis,' the i Paper has 'Pensions face tax hike to pay for Labour welfare U-turn,' and the Telegraph goes with 'Corbyn's hard-left challenge to Starmer.'
Pictures of Diogo Jota, who died in a car crash in Spain, feature on many front pages. The Mirror splashes on 'Liverpool star tragedy: Devastating,' for the Sun, it's 'Football has lost a champion,' and the Express leads with ''Our hearts are broken' …fans in shock over death of Kop star.'
Our critics' roundup of the best things to watch, read, play and listen to right now
TVGaza: Doctors Under Attack | ★★★★★
Several powerful documentaries have emerged on Palestine this year, but this is the most unflinching. Its central thesis: the IDF systematically targets medics in all 36 of Gaza's hospitals. The pattern they lay out is chilling: first bombardment, then siege, followed by raids with tanks and bulldozers. Medical staff are detained, hospitals destroyed and the forces move on. The aim appears to be long-term devastation and ensuring Palestinians have nothing to return to. The documentary's slow, methodical unfurling of this thesis is the stuff of nightmares. Stuart Heritage
Film
Heads of State | ★★★★☆
Idris Elba and John Cena return in this gun show from Nobody director Ilya Naishuller, playing a UK prime minister and US president at odds. After a joint press conference goes sideways and derails a Nato-backed energy deal, the two are forced to fly together to repair the damage, only for their Air Force One trip to end in a fiery crash. Elba deftly toggles between Odd Couple chemistry with Cena and romantic tension with Priyanka Chopra. Naishuller delivers action with pratfalls and one-liners. This is the perfect summer movie – fun, fiery, and totally frivolous. Andrew Lawrence
Music
. (Period): Kesha | ★★★★☆Kesha's sixth album marks a fresh start, bringing back the artist who once brushed her teeth with Jack Daniel's and danced with giant penises on stage. Only the piano ballad Cathedral feels fully rooted in her recent legal battles. This is clearly an album designed to put Kesha back at the centre of pop. The songs are strong, full of smart twists, drops, and funny, self-referential lines: 'You're on TikTok / I'm the fucking OG.' The army of collaborators, from Jonathan Wilson to Madison Love, rally behind her. Kesha plays the part of Kesha 1.0 to perfection. For all the lyrical excess, nothing feels forced. Why would it? She's simply reclaiming the role she created. Alexis Petridis
Guilty … and not guilty: understanding the Sean 'Diddy' Combs verdict – podcast
The rapper faced charges often levied at mafia bosses. Anna Betts explains what the jury heard, and Andrew Lawrence tells Nosheen Iqbal what the verdict means for the music mogul
A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad
Spain's women's football team has battled systemic misogyny and poor treatment for years, culminating in a World Cup win in 2023 overshadowed by an unwanted kiss from football chief Luis Rubiales.
The incident ignited global outrage and amplified calls for equality. The outcome of the scandal was that it sparked wider social debate in Spain about gender and power, and ultimately gave young women the voice they needed. The players now say that this turning point has led to a positive change.
Player Aitana Bonmatí says, 'It was tough to play here; the situation wasn't good … Now everything is better.'
And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow.
Quick crossword
Cryptic crossword
Wordiply
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves says she cannot rule out autumn tax rises after ‘damaging' week
Rachel Reeves has said it is impossible for her to rule out tax rises in the autumn budget and insisted she never thought about quitting despite a turbulent week for her and the government. In an interview with the Guardian, the chancellor said 'there are costs' to the watering down of the welfare bill and acknowledged it had been a 'damaging' week for Downing Street. The chancellor's tears in the Commons on Wednesday spooked the financial markets and raised questions about her future in the job, but No 10 quickly weighed in behind her, saying she and the prime minister were in lockstep. Reeves said she had never considered resigning her position, despite being the focus of some Labour backbench anger over her handling of the economy, saying: 'I didn't work that hard to then quit.' She said she regretted going into prime minister's questions in tears after a 'tough day in the office' but hoped that people 'could relate' to her distress. 'It was a personal matter but it was in the glare of the camera. And that's unfortunate, but I think people have seen that I'm back in business and back out there,' she said. 'I went to prime minister's questions because I thought that was the right thing to do, because that's where I always am at lunchtime on a Wednesday. You know, in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn't gone in … [on] a tough day in the office. But, you know, it is what it is. But I think most people can relate to that – that they've had tough days.' Her challenging moment in parliament came in the same week that a backbench rebellion forced the government to drop key welfare cuts, which leaves Reeves with a £5bn black hole to fill in the country's finances. 'It's been damaging,' she admitted. 'I'm not going to deny that, but I think where we are now, with a review led by Stephen Timms [a work and pensions minister], who is obviously incredibly respected and has a huge amount of experience, that's the route we're taking now. 'That's the right thing to do. It is important that we listen in government, that we listen to our colleagues and listen to what groups outside are saying as well.' Timms is working with disability groups to reform the personal independent payments (Pip) system, which had been the target of government cuts until the huge backbench rebellion drove the government to drop them. Reeves said the government had learned lessons about bringing MPs and the country along with them in the run-up to what is widely expected to be a difficult budget this autumn ahead. 'As we move into the budget for the autumn, I do want to bring people into those trade-offs,' she said. Asked whether she was prepared to rule out tax rises, she said: 'I'm not going to, because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor 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.' While tax rises could be on the table, Reeves signalled that her fiscal rules would remain and that 'we'll continue to keep that grip on the public finances'. But she stressed the need to accompany this with a strong explanation of how the Treasury's choices fit with Labour values. 'I'm not going to apologise for making sure the numbers add up,' she said. 'But we do need to make sure that we're telling a story, and a Labour story. We did that well in the budget and the spending review, we increased taxes on the wealthiest and businesses. In the budget last year, I made it really clear that priorities in that budget were to protect working people, to invest in the NHS and to start rebuilding Britain.' Some within government and the Labour party have been pushing for either a reconsideration of the fiscal rules or rethinking the remit of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which produces two forecasts and rulings a year on whether the rules have been met. Asked whether she would consider one forecast instead of two, Reeves said: 'We are looking at how the OBR works, but I think it is really important to have those independent economic institutions, because if you start undermining those … and getting rid of the checks and balances on a government, I do think that is risky. But the International Monetary Fund have made some recommendations about how to deliver better fiscal policymaking. And obviously I take those seriously.' The IMF has suggested that while the OBR could still produce two forecasts, it could be possible to only have one annual assessment of whether the chancellor is hitting her fiscal rules. However, government sources suggested that any changes could be more along the lines of more regular exchange of information to reduce last-minute changes like those in the spring statement. Reeves also spoke of her drive to reduce child poverty but she would not be drawn on whether she would lift the two-child benefit cap. Keir Starmer has said the government 'will look at it' but experts have warned it could be more difficult given the hole left by the U-turn on the welfare cuts. The chancellor said she wanted to reduce child poverty but was 'not wedded to any specific policy', adding: 'I think people can see how serious I am about making sure that all good kids get a good start in life by what we did in the spending review just a few weeks ago.'
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
Volunteers catch over 45,000 Sussex drivers speeding in 2024/25
More than 45,000 drivers in Sussex have been caught speeding by volunteers over the last year, new figures have Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Katy Bourne shared the findings for 2024/25 during a meeting of the county's police and crime panel on the work of community speedwatch volunteers, the public reported more than 13,000 incidents of dangerous and antisocial driving via Operation Crackdown. Presenting her annual report, the PCC said the figures were "quite sobering". "It's no wonder we're seeing increases in collisions on our roads," she Bourne confirmed that another 772 reports were made via a separate road safety initiative, Operation a result, more than 30,000 people were given the chance to attend driver training courses as an alternative to prosecution, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service. At the end of March, Sussex Police left the Safer Roads Partnership and it was announced that a dedicated Fatal Five Roads Unit would be set up to deal with issues such as Fatal Five are driving offences which are the main contributors to serious and fatal accidents – excess speed, not wearing a seatbelt, being distracted by things such as a phone, drink and drug driving, and careless and inconsiderate Bourne confirmed that the business case for the unit is now complete. She said: "We're now in the process with the scoping team. That started this month and we're due that report in October. "So hopefully it will be established in the new year. But these things take a while."
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Who's really to blame for Labour's troubles – Rachel Reeves or the invisible PM?
She is not the first chancellor to cry in public, and may not be the last. But Rachel Reeves is the first whose tears have moved markets. No sooner had the realisation dawned that she was silently weeping – over a personal sorrow she won't be pushed into revealing, she insisted later, not a political one – as she sat beside Keir Starmer at Wednesday's prime minister's questions, than the pound was dropping and the cost of borrowing rising. The bond traders who forced out Liz Truss's hapless chancellor still clearly rate her judgment and want her to stay, even if (perhaps especially if) some Labour MPs don't. Yet it is an extraordinary thing to live with the knowledge that a moment's uncontrolled emotion can drive up the cost of a nation's mortgages, just as a misjudged stroke of the budget pen can destroy lives. The most striking thing about her tears, however, was Starmer's failure to notice. Intent on the Tory benches opposite, the prime minister simply ploughed on, not realising that his closest political ally was dissolving beside him. Though within hours, a clearly mortified Starmer had thrown a metaphorical arm around her, and Reeves herself was back out talking up her beloved fiscal rules as if nothing had happened. But it's the kind of image that sticks: her distress and his oblivion, an unfortunately convenient metaphor for all the times he has seemed oddly detached from his own government. Quite aside from whatever private grief she is now carrying, Reeves has for years been shouldering an exhausting load. From the start, she and Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, did an unusual amount of the heavy lifting on behalf of their oddly apolitical leader – and in government the stakes have only risen. McSweeney, a natural fixer now jammed faintly awkwardly into a strategist's role, was once credited with near-mythical influence over Starmer, but for months is said to have been struggling at times to get the boss's ear. Reeves, meanwhile, has ended up by default running much of the domestic agenda, while Starmer focuses on foreign policy crises and a handful of big issues that passionately exercise him. Since even close aides and ministers complain of never really knowing what he wants, the result is a Treasury-brained government that tends to start with the numbers and work back to what's possible, rather than setting a political goal and figuring out how to reach it. Perhaps that makes sense to the City, but not to Labour MPs frogmarched through a series of politically toxic decisions with no obvious rationale except that the money's got to come from somewhere. To many of them, Starmer appears at best like a kind of political weekend dad: largely absent from everyday life and reluctant to get involved in political battles, but swooping in at the last minute to issue orders. Complaints of Downing Street dysfunction have been a staple under at least the last four prime ministers, but there's a weakness at the core of this No 10 that is putting the rest of government under undue strain, like a runner trying to push on through an injury who ends up pulling every other muscle in the process. On the left, there is growing talk of trying to force a 'reset' in spring, if next year's Scottish and Welsh elections go as badly as they assume: force Reeves out, let radicalism in, fight Reform's emotive rightwing fire with a form of leftwing populism perhaps loosely resembling what the Democrats' Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are doing in the US. It's exactly what the markets fear, judging by their reaction to Reeves' temporary wobble. But even Labour MPs who'd never go that far are growing restless for change. Just raise taxes, cries this week's New Statesman magazine, echoing a widespread view that the fiscal straitjacket imposed by Reeves is killing the government. I argued for the same thing in the Guardian back in March, and haven't changed my mind. But the political cost of doing so is arguably higher now than it would have been then, when tax rises could plausibly still have been framed as an emergency response to Donald Trump pulling the plug on Europe's defence and forcing Britain to rearm, rather than as an admission that the government can no longer get its spending plans past its own backbenchers. In their understandable frustration, however, some fail to ask why Reeves holds the iron grip she does; why Treasury thinking isn't more often challenged by No 10. If this government's mistakes often have her fingerprints somewhere on them, then so do many of its successes. Last week, I was at a housing conference, surrounded by people still euphoric at getting everything they asked for in last month's spending review: unprecedented billions poured into genuinely affordable and social housing – with emphasis thankfully for once on the social – with a 10-year settlement from the Treasury, creating the long-term certainty they need to make it happen. Angela Rayner fought like a tiger for it, but Reeves made the money happen, and the result will change lives. Children who would have grown up in grim, frightening temporary accommodation will have safe, permanent homes. Vulnerable people will escape the clutches of unscrupulous landlords and first-time buyers will climb ladders otherwise out of reach. It's everything a Labour government exists to do, but as with so many unseen good things happening – on green energy, say, or transport – the money didn't fall from the sky and won't be there in future if an ageing and chronically unfit population carries on consuming welfare spending or health spending (the next big battleground, judging by the detail of Wes Streeting's 10-year plan) at current rates. To a frustrated Treasury, this week's rebellion was evidence that Labour MPs don't live in the real world, where hard choices must be faced for good things to happen. But, to the rebels, it's evidence that the Treasury doesn't live in their real world, where vulnerable people struggle with deep-rooted health problems only aggravated by being pushed into poverty, and the Greens as much as Reform are threatening to eat them for breakfast over it. There is some truth in both arguments. But that's precisely why it is ultimately a prime minister's job, and nobody else's, to draw all the threads of the government together: to balance political yin against economic yang, such that neither dominates or bends the project out of shape. Chancellors come and, eventually, even the best go. But sometimes it's only then that you can really tell whether the problem was ever really the chancellor. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist
