High Court grants Palestine Action bid to challenge terrorist ban

Protest group can now legally contest UK government decision

Campaigners outside court in London, where Palestine Action won its bid to proceed with a legal challenge against a government decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation. PA

Palestine Action will be allowed to challenge a UK government decision to designate it a terrorist organisation at the High Court in London, a judge ruled on Wednesday.

The protest group's co-founder Huda Ammori sought to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision, which came into effect this month.

Mr Justice Chamberlain approved the application on two grounds: first, that the proscription order " amounts to a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s and others’ rights to freedom of expression, and freedom to protest". Second was that Ms Cooper had not consulted the group before making the proscription order, in breach of "natural justice" and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The group will remain a proscribed terrorist organisation while the legal challenge takes place.

Planes damaged

The move to proscribe Palestine Action was announced after members of the group damaged two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton late last month.

Police said about £7 million ($9.3 million) worth of damage was caused. The group claimed the planes had been involved in supporting Israel's military action in Gaza via the Royal Air Force base at Akrotiri in Cyprus.

But the decision to designate the group was made as early as March, over some of its previous protests.

Protesters outside the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of Palestine Action appeal. Lucy North/PA Wire

Mr Justice Chamberlain rejected Ms Ammori's claims that the move was unlawful because it was influenced by "the views of pro-Israeli lobby groups", or that the group seeks "to prevent conduct which many regard as amounting to genocide".

'Reasonably arguable'

However, he accepted other points. “As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose,” he said.

“Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.”

After Wednesday's ruling, Ms Ammori said: “This landmark decision to grant a judicial review, which could see the Home Secretary’s unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedom of speech, expression and assembly, and rights to natural justice in our country, and the rule of law itself.”

Judges had previously denied Ms Ammori's legal challenge for an injunction on July 4 that would have postponed the proposed ban, citing a strong public interest in bringing the order into force.

The latest ruling was welcomed by campaign groups, who fear the terror designation could have an adverse effect on the wider pro-Palestine protest movement.

A representative for Defend Our Juries, the group organising the protests, said: “Yvette Cooper has no one to blame for this crisis but herself. We are confident the High Court will soon strike down this absurd and repugnant order.”

Any ban would mean support for, or membership of, Palestinian Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in jail.