Government loses bid to block appeal against Palestine Action ban
In an attempt to prevent a challenge to the government's decision to prohibit Palestine Activity under terrorist law, the government has failed. The Court of Appeal made a highly judicial decision that opened the way for the review of the ban before a High Court judge next month. Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, had obtained permission for the home secretary's ban earlier this year. The Home Office said it would consider the implications of the decision, but that Palestine Action remained a banned group and that those who support them would "face the full force of the law. The prohibition, which started on July 5, makes joining or supporting the direct action group a criminal offence.
More than 2,100 protesters have been arrested in protests since being in possession. They have displayed signs reading, I condemn genocide, I support Palestine Action
during those demonstrations. Hundreds of protesters have been charged with ostensibly supporting the cause, which could result in six months in jail. Ministers attempted to prevent the judicial hearing from proceeding, arguing that Parliament had devised a specific and alternative procedure for appealing against banning orders. Any group that is outlawed by ministers can request to be deproscribed
under terrorist rules under Home Office scrutiny. That process can take months to complete. If ministers agree that the prohibition should keep in force, the order can be reconsidered by judges in a special semi-secret court, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, if ministers. In practice, this means that any group that has been barred but believes it can show it is not involved in terrorism will spend potentially one year or more fighting its lawsuit. Ms Ammori's lawyers argued that the group's ban, as well as the amount of government funding for the direct action group, meant that the process was not fair and that the ban should be reviewed immediately by the High Court. And though Parliament had introduced the alternative appeal process, they said it had not explicitly ruled out a quicker route to challenge a ban.
Ms Ammori could lawfully challenge the initial decision to proscribe Palestine Action, rather than having to wait for the result of the longer POAC process, according to Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice.
she wrote in her ruling on Friday morning. A judicial investigation, she said, would be aAn application to deproscribe, which has the right of appeal to the POAC, was not intended to be a way of challenging the initial decision,
rather than attempting to deproscribe.quicker way of criticizing the order proscribing Palestine Action
That decision could later be relied on in criminal trials involving anyone arrested in connection with their support of Palestine Action.The judicial investigation will allow the High Court to reach a legally binding decision on whether or not it was lawful to proscribe Palestine action.
Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign.The Home Office's spokesperson confirmed that it had noted the Court of Appeal's decision and that it would now carefully consider the implications.
they said.This has resulted in criminal harm to Britain's national security system, as well as intimidation, suspected violence, and serious injuries,
Anyone should remember that helping Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing.Palestine Action remains a proscribed group, and those who support them will face the full force of the legislation.
backfired spectacularlyHowever, Ms Ammori said that the government's attempt to avoid judicial scrutiny had
We now go into the judicial review in November with a much more solid legal footing,because the Court of Appeal had also found that she could appeal the ban on more grounds than had ever existed.
she said in a tweet.Arresting peaceful demonstrators and those disrupting the arms trade is a risky use of counter-terrorism funds. Ms Ammori was also accepted on a second occasion in November for expanding her case. This means she has the ability to argue more clearly to the High Court about why she claims the ban is unlawful.
