The Court of Appeal has ruled that the decision to ban Palestine Action as a terror group was lawful, overturning a previous High Court ruling. Five appeal judges delivered their verdict on Monday after the Home Office appealed against the earlier decision, which had deemed the ban unlawful.
Background of the Ban
The ban, implemented on July 5 last year by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper under the Terrorism Act 2000, made membership of or support for the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The ban remained in force while the Home Office challenged the High Court's ruling, which followed a legal challenge from the group's co-founder, Huda Ammori.
Court of Appeal Decision
In a summary of the decision, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr stated that the High Court had "materially understated the position" regarding the Home Secretary's discretion in proscription decisions. She noted that comparisons to groups like the suffragettes were "seriously flawed." Baroness Carr, sitting with Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Edis, Lord Justice Lewis, and Lady Justice Whipple, emphasized a distinction between supporting an organization's objectives and supporting the organization itself.
The court recognized that many people might experience a "chilling effect" due to the proscription but concluded that the ban was a "justified and proportionate" interference with freedom of expression rights. Baroness Carr stated: "We recognise the proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism." She described the group as a covert organization operating with secret cells to avoid detection and prosecution for using violence to destroy property and cause injury.
Reactions and Next Steps
Following the judgment, Ms. Ammori announced her intention to take the case to the UK Supreme Court, and if necessary, the European Court of Human Rights. She argued that criminalizing peaceful political protest is a flagrant violation of fundamental rights and freedoms protected under the Human Rights Act. The Home Office has indicated it will "robustly defend" any Supreme Court challenge.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood welcomed the ruling, stating: "The Court of Appeal's judgment upholds the proscription of Palestine Action. The court has found that Palestine Action has carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who have taken part in those acts and promoted the use of violence. This decision does not affect lawful protest in support of the Palestinian cause."
Legal Arguments
In the appeal, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, argued that the line between criminality and terrorism is not clear-cut and that criminal law had failed to prevent the group's escalation. Conversely, Raza Husain KC, for Ms. Ammori, contended that the High Court correctly found the ban did not balance human rights appropriately and had created a "culture of fear" among Palestinian rights campaigners.
Related Incidents
The ruling follows the sentencing of four Palestine Action activists who conducted a raid on an Elbit Systems UK factory. Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Rajwani, 21, used sledgehammers and crowbars to destroy equipment. Corner struck a police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. The judge ruled the raid as an "act of terrorism" and sentenced them to between four years and eight months and seven years and eight months in prison, with an additional year on license.
