1 week ago
37
The co-founder of Palestine Action has won a legal challenge to the home secretary’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws.
The proscription of Palestine Action, which categorised it alongside the likes of Islamic State, was the first of a direct action protest group and attracted widespread condemnation as well as a civil disobedience campaign defying the ban, during which more than 2,000 people have been arrested.
From 5 July last year, being a member of – or showing support for – the group became an offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, challenged the ban at a trial in the high court in London, part of which was held in secret and which concluded in December.
On Friday, three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, ruled the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful but the ban on the group would remain to give the government time to appeal.
They allowed the challenge on two of four grounds, namely that there was “a very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association and that the then home secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action was not consistent with her own policy.
The current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, said she would appeal against the decision.
Ammori called it a “monumental victory”. She said: “We were banned because Palestine Action’s disruption of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit Systems, cost the corporation millions of pounds in profits and to lose out on multibillion-pound contracts.
“We’ve used the same tactics as direct action organisations throughout history, including anti-war groups Keir Starmer defended in court, and the government acknowledged in these legal proceedings that this ban was based on property damage, not violence against people.
“Banning Palestine Action was always about appeasing pro-Israel lobby groups and weapons manufacturers, and nothing to do with terrorism … Today’s landmark ruling is a victory for freedom for all, and I urge the government to respect the court’s decision and bring this injustice to an end without further delay.”
The judgment is the first time that an organisation banned under anti-terrorism law has successfully challenged proscription in court.
Sharp described Palestine Action as an organisation “that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality”, but added: “The court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. A very small number of Palestine Action’s activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 act.
“For these, and for Palestine Action’s other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available. The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.”
According to Defend Our Juries, more than 2,700 people have been arrested since proscription took effect – most of them for holding placards saying “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action” – accused of offences under section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison. More than 500 of those arrested, who include vicars, pensioners and military veterans, have been charged.
If the proscription order is quashed it will pave the way for all the charges to be dropped but the decision to retain the ban for the time being means those charged remain in limbo.
Mahmood said on Friday: “I am disappointed by the court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate. The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by parliament. The proscription does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the court agrees.
“As a former lord chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. Home secretaries must however retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal.”
