5 days ago
22
Concerns have been raised after the judge who was expected to hear a legal challenge to the ban on Palestine Action was removed from the case at the last minute without explanation.
Mr Justice Chamberlain had granted permission for the judicial review and said that he would preside over the trial but it has emerged that a panel of three different judges will instead hear the case, which is due to start on Wednesday.
It is unusual for a judge to be replaced – as Chamberlain was last Wednesday – so close to the hearing date, although it also happened to him earlier this year in the legal challenge to the UK’s sale of F-35 aircraft parts to Israel, which he had also granted permission for.
Asked why he had been taken off the Palestine Action case, the Ministry of Justice referred the Guardian to the judiciary press office, which refused to comment.
Tayab Ali, a partner at the law firm Bindmans, which is not involved in the Palestine Action case, but acted in the F-35 judicial review, said: “A sudden and unexplained shift from the single judge who already had conduct of the case to an entirely new panel of three is deeply concerning, particularly without any stated justification.
“In a matter as sensitive as this, involving allegations linked to Palestine and public-interest activism of significant constitutional importance, the integrity and transparency of the judicial process must be beyond question. At the very least, the court should provide a clear and credible explanation for such a change.”
The chief magistrate, Paul Goldspring, who is hearing criminal cases of people alleged to have shown support for Palestine Action, said recently that Chamberlain had told him he was expecting to reach a decision in the judicial review by Christmas. Despite the change of trial judges, Chamberlain has still been presiding over application hearings this week in relation to the judicial review.
The three judges who will now hear the case are the president of the high court’s king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Steyn and Mr Justice Swift.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, which has organised demonstrations against the proscription of Palestine Action, said Chamberlain was “widely respected for his fairness and independence” and “had been consistently confirmed as the judge presiding over this judicial review – in court documents, correspondence, and in related criminal hearings involving peaceful protesters arrested for holding signs.
“If Dame Sharp believed a panel of judges was necessary, the usual process would have been to add judges to sit alongside him, not to remove Chamberlain entirely – especially as he is one of the most senior judges on the high court bench, so this cannot be explained on grounds of seniority.
“In a case of such national significance – determining whether [more than] 2,350 peaceful protesters will continue to be criminalised as ‘terrorists’ for holding cardboard signs [saying ‘I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action’] the public deserves transparency, not backroom manoeuvres to cherrypick judges, threatening the fundamental principle of judicial independence.”
In the F-35 exports judicial review, Chamberlain was replaced by Steyn and Lord Justice Males. They found that Britain’s decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel was lawful, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
Emily Apple, the media coordinator for Campaign Against the Arms Trade, called Chamberlain’s removal from the Palestine Action case “deeply alarming” and urged the court to explain the reasoning behind it.
“This raises serious questions around the lack of impartiality and transparency in our judicial system, and whether this is now a pattern in significant legal cases concerning Palestine,” she said.
