Met police issue huge update following bombshell Palestine Action court ruling | Politics | News

Scotland Yard said that people who support Palestine Action will not be arrested after the Supreme Court’s bombshell decision.

The judges ruled that the group had “organized and undertaken acts amounting to terrorism” but should not be lumped in with ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Palestine Action has won a legal challenge against the Home Office’s decision to ban it as a terrorist organisation, despite widespread concerns about its criminal activity.

However, the ban will be extended until further legal recourse is made; This means that supporting the group is still a criminal offence.

And the Metropolitan Police said they were pausing arrests due to “unusual circumstances”.

Officers said: “We recognize these are unusual circumstances and there is likely to be some confusion among the public about what happens next.

“From a Metropolitan Police perspective, officers will continue to detect crimes where support for Palestine Action is expressed, but rather than arresting at the time, they will focus on gathering evidence of those crimes and the individuals involved, providing opportunities for execution at a later date.

“While we accept the court’s decision, while also recognizing that the trial has not yet been fully concluded, this is the most proportionate approach we can take.

“This approach is only about expressing support for Palestine Action.

“We will continue to intervene and make arrests when we see individuals crossing the line to intimidate lawful protest, destroy property, use violence, incite racial hatred or commit other crimes.”

Home Affairs Minister Shabana Mahmood said she was “disappointed” with the Supreme Court decision and added that the Home Office would appeal the decision.

The decision means more than 2,000 people arrested for holding banners or displaying messages supporting the group can now have their trials annulled.

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, said: “It is difficult to decide where the balance should be struck in this case.

“In balancing such issues, the court should allow the Home Secretary some latitude, given that he has both political and practical responsibility for ensuring public safety.

“However, we are satisfied that the decision to ban Palestine Action was disproportionate.

“At its core, the Palestine Movement is an organization that promotes its political cause through criminality and incitement to crime. Very few of its actions amount to acts of terrorism.”

However, the Minister of Internal Affairs promised to continue the fight.

Ms Mahmood said: “The court accepted that Palestine Action had committed acts of terrorism, congratulated those who took part in them and encouraged the use of violence.

“It also concluded that Palestine Action was not an ordinary protest or civil disobedience group and that its actions were not consistent with democratic values ​​and the rule of law.

“For these reasons, I am disappointed with the Court’s decision and disagree that the proscription of this terrorist organization was disproportionate.

“The ban on Palestine Action followed a rigorous, evidence-based decision-making process approved by Parliament. The ban does not prevent peaceful protests in support of the Palestinian cause, another point with which the Court agreed.

“As a former Chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. However, Home Secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to challenge this decision in the Court of Appeal.”

Nearly 100 people gathered outside the High Court in central London cheering and chanting “Free Palestine” after judges ruled that the Home Office’s decision to ban Palestinian Action under terrorism laws was unlawful.

Many of the activists waving Palestinian flags were carrying banners in support; One reads: “I oppose genocide, support Palestine Action.”

Huda Ammori, who launched the legal case, said: “Palestine Action is the first civil disobedience organization to not advocate for a ban on violence by the British government in a Trump-style abuse of power that would lead to the Labor government banning suffragists.

“This ban was unlawful and led to the unlawful detention under terrorism laws of nearly 3,000 people, including priests, deacons, former judges and retired doctors, for sitting silently holding banners reading ‘I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action’.”

Dame Victoria said Ms Ammori had won on two of the four grounds on which she objected, but the ban would remain to allow time for further debate and for the Government to lodge an objection.

This means that it is currently a criminal offense to be a member of or support the Palestine Movement.

He said Ms Ammori’s and the Home Office’s lawyers must make written submissions on “the terms of the decision that should be made” by February 20.

In their decision, the judges said: “Real weight must be given to the fact that the Palestine Movement organized and undertook acts amounting to terrorism.

“It is significant that Palestine Action does not suggest that its actions, which are considered to involve terrorism, were a mistake or aberration.

“Rather, Palestine Action praised those who participated in these actions.

“It is also important that the contents of the Underground Guide provide good evidence that Palestine Action continues to intend to encourage the use of violence, regardless of the risk of serious damage to property or serious violence against the public.”

The judges said that defining the Palestine Action as “non-violent” was not “sustainable”.

They concluded: “The plaintiff in this case attempted to portray Palestine Action as a ‘non-violent’ organization.

“This is not a sustainable proposal. It is based on the assumption that damage to property, regardless of its extent, does not involve the use of violence.

“This is a view that many people will find difficult to understand and, for our part, we cannot accept, especially when such harms are more than merely symbolic.

“The proposal also ignores the very real risk of injury that can arise when individuals are armed with sledgehammers to damage property while also intending to avoid detection, as suggested by Palestine Action.”