High Court to rule on Palestine Action terror group ban
The Home Office is set to discover whether it has successfully appealed the Supreme Court’s decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation.
Three judges ruled in February that then home secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 last year was unlawful, following a legal challenge from the group’s co-founder Huda Ammori.
The ban, which began on July 5 last year, made membership of or support for a direct action group an offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison, and remained in place as the Home Office attempted to appeal the decision.
In an appeal filed in April, the department’s lawyers said the Supreme Court’s findings on the human rights impact of banning Palestine Action as a terrorist organization were “exaggerated and inaccurate.”
Ms Ammori’s lawyers told the hearing in London that there were “numerous alternative measures” to limit the Palestine Movement’s activities that were “less intrusive” than proscribing it as a terrorist group.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Edis, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Whipple will give their verdict at 11am on Monday.
Thousands of people were arrested following the ban, with Ms Ammori’s lawyer, Raza Husain KC, telling the Supreme Court last year that the ban was “ill-considered, discriminatory, devoid of due process, an authoritarian abuse of legal power”.
The Home Office defended the appeal, with its lawyer, Sir James Eadie KC, telling the court in London that the ban “strikes a fair balance between interference with the rights of individuals affected and the interests of society”.
In the 46-page judgment in February, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, said the “essential features of civil disobedience” were “not hallmarks of the Palestine Action campaign”.
But he continued that only a “very small fraction” of the group’s actions “constitute acts of terrorism” and that they “have not yet reached the level, scale and persistence” that would justify a ban.
Dame Victoria also said Ms Cooper had made a “significant” mistake in using her discretion to ban Palestine Action, partly because of the ban’s potential advantages in disrupting the group’s activities; The judge said this was “inconsistent” with the then home secretary’s own policy.
In his appeal, Sir James said in written submissions that “the line between criminality, sometimes violent crime, and terrorism is not very bright” and that the criminal law had “clearly failed” to prevent the group’s activities from escalating.
But in his written submissions, Mr. Husain said the Supreme Court was correct in finding that the ban on the group did not properly balance the human rights at stake and that the ban on Palestine Action had created a “culture of fear” among Palestinian rights advocates.
A short hearing is expected to be held on Monday, where the decision will be officially announced.
