High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban
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.
Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice on The Strand, central London, earlier in July (Lucy North/PA)
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'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Flawed white collar justice: Fraud Office must act faster to bring prosecutions, says ALEX BRUMMER
Top-level fraud convictions in Britain are rare. The decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the verdict on former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes will not make the task any easier. Hayes was involved in the manipulation of trades in the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate used in billions of transactions across the globe. In the search for justice, when the scandal erupted in 2012, Hayes became the poster person for City wrongdoing. He received a 14-year sentence after a jury trial (he served five-and-a-half years). The Supreme Court reversal of the verdict, wildly celebrated by Hayes, was less about market abuse and more about over-zealous directions of the judge to the jury at the trial. It has become fashionable to suggest that because many traders indulged in similar efforts to fix market outcomes, that what Hayes did was ordinary rather than exceptional. Cheating should never be acceptable. Market participants on the other side of the transaction will have lost out because of a lack of honesty and transparency. The context of Hayes' conviction and sentencing must be understood. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) needed victories, having failed to bring anyone to justice during the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. Taxpayer anger was running high and Hayes, by his own confession, was an easy target. Nothing could be pinned on more senior executives. But in one of his best moments, the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, summoned Barclays grandees to Threadneedle Street and demanded the head of chief executive Bob Diamond. For as long as I can remember reviews into the judiciary have made the case against jury trials for fraud. It is argued that City malfeasance is too complex for ordinary mortals and some kind of tribunal system should be established. This was first recommended by the Roskill Report in the 1980s, repeated by Lord Justice Auld in 2001 and endorsed again by Lord Leveson this month. All wanted to substitute financial experts sitting with a judge. The target should not be the jury system. The real villains are overpaid City law firms and barristers who shut witnesses down by claiming 'privilege', long delays for white-collar cases and efforts to drown jurors in thousands of pages of incomprehensible testimony. The SFO takes far too long to investigate and bring prosecutions, overcomplicates, and then claims the law is not fit for purpose. Contrast Britain's sclerotic justice with that in the US where bitcoin rascal Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX was indicted, tried and sentenced in just over a year. It was ever thus. Instead of cheering Hayes' triumph, we should bemoan the fact that the route to financial justice is so deeply flawed. Wrong boot Rachel Reeves' purpose in seeking to remove the 'boot on the neck' of business by slashing red tape is to gee-up investment in British innovation. One fears that taxes already imposed on wealth, abolition of non-domicile status, higher capital gains and inheritance tax levies already are driving the companies we want in Britain to cash out and scram. Latest is fintech-forex group Alpha, which is accepting a £1.8billion bid from US competitor Corpay. The 55 per cent premium based on the share price in May appears generous. It is less convincing when one considers the infamous 'London discount' to New York. Some recent tech bids achieved a whopping 96 per cent upside. One might have hoped that chairman Jayne-Anne Gadhia, of Virgin Money fame, and Clive Kahn, chief executive of Travelex in its glory days, might have shown more resistance. Pressure, however, to take the money and run is overwhelming. Sinking sun In the 1980s and 1990s the rising economic power of Japan and its investment in the US were seen as an enormous threat to US hegemony, as portrayed in Michael Crichton's novel 'Rising Sun' and subsequent movie. In Trump's America it is very different. The price for lowering car tariffs is that Japan spends £405billion on inward investment in the US. How the world turns!
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Serious Fraud Office under fire after Hayes Libor conviction is quashed by the Supreme Court
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) faced intense criticism yesterday after the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo for Libor rate rigging. Hayes and Palombo were jailed for manipulating the Libor benchmark rate to benefit their own trading positions. But yesterday Britain's highest court ruled that the judge in Hayes' case had misdirected the jury in a way that effectively removed from them the ability to consider his defence. 'That was an error,' it said. Palombo's conviction was unsafe for similar reasons. And it could pave the way for seven others convicted of similar offences to be cleared. For Hayes, who was convicted in 2015 and spent five-and-a-half years in jail – destroying his career and marriage – it completes a decade-long fight for justice. And the case raises serious questions about the SFO after setbacks in other major cases including prosecutions involving executives at Tesco, G4S and Serco. Tory MP David Davis, who backed the traders, said: 'This is a major scandal in which traders were made scapegoats for the sins of the financial crisis. 'Lives ruined, families torn apart, careers and reputations destroyed and of course for Tom and Carlo, loss of liberty. Their cases serve as yet another example of a justice system gone badly wrong.' Davis claimed the SFO was part of a 'scapegoating exercise' also including the banks and the City regulator. Karen Todner, Hayes' solicitor, said: 'The SFO failed spectacularly. The result destroyed people's lives who frankly did not deserve it.' Todner called for a public inquiry and said the right of bodies such as the SFO as well as the Post Office and the RSPCA to prosecute individuals should be removed. 'The dual role of the SFO as investigator and prosecutor creates a substantial conflict of interest which creates miscarriages of justice,' she added. 'It should be disbanded. I think they really failed as a team.' Hayes said: 'The behaviour of the SFO is shocking. The SFO is a conflicted organisation that's not fit for purpose. It's got a history of criminalising the non-criminal.'
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
‘Bonkers' UN court ruling may allow countries to sue each other for climate reparations
COUNTRIES could soon be able to sue each other for climate reparations after a 'bonkers' court decision. The International Court of Justice ruling paves the way for poorer nations to launch multi-billion Pound compensation cases against rich powers like Britain. 2 The move sparked fury last night, with the Tories branding the top UN court's proclamation 'insane' and Reform UK warning it hands a blank cheque to foreign governments. Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho said: 'We have to put Britain's interests first. 'The Government must make clear it sees no basis for this ruling to be acted upon.' Reform UK's Richard Tice fumed: 'This is another bonkers non-binding advisory judgment by the ICJ. 'They absurdly said we should give up the Chagos islands. 'They just hate us.' The judges said governments can be held responsible for climate damage — even if it stems from historic emissions pumped out decades ago. The court's opinion is non-binding, but legal experts say it could trigger real-world lawsuits as early as next week. The legal case was cooked up by law students from Pacific islands who claimed wealthy countries failed them. Flora Vano from Vanuatu island, said: 'The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through — our suffering, resilience and right to our future.' Keir Starmer's deranged drive for Net Zero with eco-zealot Ed Miliband is a threat to UK's national security- here's why The UK and others argued deals, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, were enough but the court rejected that. Judge Iwasawa Yuji ruled not hitting the toughest climate targets would breach international law and said even countries outside the Paris pact must still protect the planet. He admitted it would be hard to determine who caused which part of climate change. Natural disasters, such as the 6.5-magnitude earthquake in Colombia in June, have also been linked to climate change. The ICJ's previous advisory ruling to hand back the Chagos Island to Mauritius was followed by the UK. 2
