Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'.
In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict.
But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme.
The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'.
In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge.
The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes.
Defence Secretary John Healey had said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' (PA)
They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.'
The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'.
The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts.
The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel.
Demonstrators outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London during an earlier hearing (PA)
Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.'
'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added.
The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself.
They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza.
'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Avon Fire Authority chair resigns over 'unwanted' behaviour
The chair of the Avon Fire Authority has resigned after accusations of inappropriate behaviour against two members of staff. Ben Nutland is still sitting as a South Gloucestershire councillor but is now serving as an independent after being suspended by the Liberal allegations centre on an event after a conference dinner at Bristol's Hilton Hotel in November 2024, during which it is claimed he followed a fire service employee to her hotel room. Mr Nutland suggested his drink may have been spiked, but no evidence to support this claim was found by the panel investigating the complaint. The allegations against Mr Nutland only came to light following the publication of a report published by the the Avon Fire Authority's governance and oversight committee hearing earlier this month. Mr Nutland resigned in December after being notified of the complaint, the report states. The committee's report states that the allegations from both women relate to a party following a dinner at the Asian Fire Service Association conference, during which he allegedly called one woman - referred to only as "employee one" - "stunning". 'Very uncomfortable' He is claimed to have asked the woman if she wanted to "go upstairs" with him, before following her back to her room and going inside and taking off his jacket and shoes and getting on to her bed. The panel investigating the complaint heard that the woman had asked him to leave, which he did with no physical contact, but had described his behaviour as "unwanted" and making her "very uncomfortable". The second employee to make a complaint claimed that Mr Nutland had twice attempted to get her to dance with him, despite clearly being told she did not want to. She felt harassed to the point she did not want to return to her car alone that night, a panel heard. Mr Nutland, the report said, claimed not to recall behaving in this manner but had said he "did encourage others to join the dancing". The report noted that Mr Nutland had made a "full" and "heartfelt" apology for his actions and had suggested his drink had been spiked. The fire authority panel found that Mr Nutland had breached the code of conduct on three counts in relation to the complaint made by employee one, and on once count in relation to employee two. A spokesperson for South Gloucestershire Council said they had been formally notified of a breach of the fire authority's code of conduct. As Mr Nutland was appointed to his role by the council, the spokesperson continued, it was now being considered how the matter should be handled under the councillor code of conduct.
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Tim Davie must consider his position
The BBC says it should never have broadcast the vile rants of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury and should have cut the live stream when he started chanting 'death to the IDF'. So how did it happen? It has emerged that BBC director-general Tim Davie was himself at Glastonbury on Saturday afternoon and whilst ruling that the performance should not subsequently be available on demand, did not pull the livestream from iPlayer. Where were the protocols to ensure anti-Semitic political propaganda was not sent out unexpurgated on the airwaves, courtesy of the long-suffering licence-fee payer? And if such rules existed why were they not enforced by Mr Davie? The incident could not have come as a surprise. Glastonbury attracts all sorts of preening, self-absorbed nonentities who think they have a monopoly of moral and political rectitude. Surely someone at the BBC must have done their due diligence and suspected that an act like Bob Vylan, which revels in controversy, would land them in it. They knew of the risk because an on-screen warning was issued about the 'very strong and discriminatory language'. At the very least, BBC executives should have insisted upon a delay allowing editors to switch coverage to another act in the event of a nauseating stunt of the sort we witnessed on Saturday. The Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told MPs she wanted to know why this act was broadcast live by the BBC and the feed was not cut. 'I want explanations,' she said. Now that we know that Mr Davie was intimately involved in this disastrous episode he must consider his own position.
The Herald Scotland
20 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.'
