London, Feb 13 (.) The UK Home Office’s decision to proscribe the Palestine Action as a terrorist entity under the country’s anti-terrorism legislation has been deemed unlawful by Britain’s High Court.
However, the ban on the group nonetheless remains active for now to allow for further legal arguments and to give the government time to consider an appeal.
The judgment delivered by three senior judges, much to the surprise of many, found that while Palestine Action had engaged in violent criminal conduct to advance its objectives, its activities were not grave enough to meet the “very high bar” required for designation as a terrorist organisation.
A key issue examined by the court was whether the proscription had improperly interfered with the rights of others to protest in support of Palestinian causes.
The original order, made last June by then home secretary Yvette Cooper, rendered membership of or support for the group a criminal offence.
Since the ban came into effect in July, more than 2,000 people have reportedly been arrested at demonstrations, with around 170 charged with allegedly expressing support for the organisation – an offence that carries a potential sentence of up to six months in prison.
The High Court concluded that the former home secretary had failed to properly assess the impact of proscription on the right to protest and had not fully adhered to the Home Office’s own policy framework governing such decisions.
The judges said that although certain individuals had knowingly supported the group, and they had subsequently been arrested, those circumstances carried “little weight” in determining whether the proscription by in itself was lawful.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, expressing disappointment with the ruling, said that the administration would appeal the ruling, stating that the original decision followed a “rigorous and evidence-based” process that had been endorsed by Parliament, now subsequently undermined by the HC.
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori described the ruling as a “monumental victory” for free speech and for supporters of Palestinian rights.
Arguing that the ban represented, according to her, “one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history” she said it would be “profoundly unjust” to continue arrests under a measure now deemed unlawful.
Additionally, Ammori also warned against a so-called “draconian overreach” if further arrests were made while the appeal process is ongoing.
Following the judgment, the Metropolitan Police said officers would not arrest individuals solely for expressing support for Palestine Action until legal proceedings are fully concluded.
However, the force stressed that the proscription technically remains in effect and that expressing support continues to constitute a criminal offence under current law. Police said they would continue gathering evidence of potential breaches.
The legal challenge was brought by Ammori, whose lawyers argued that the ban amounted to a “blatant abuse of power.”
While the Home Office had attempted to prevent the judicial review from proceeding, contending that Parliament had already established a specific statutory mechanism to appeal proscription decisions.
That effort failed when the Court of Appeal rejected ministers’ bid to block the case in October, allowing the High Court to hear the challenge.
The ruling has resulted in heavily polarised political reactions, with Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Max Wilkinson saying that the ban was a “grave misuse of terrorism laws”, and further warned that placing the group in the same legal category as organisations such as Islamic State risked undermining public trust and civil liberties.
Green Party co-leader Zack Polanski welcomed the judgment and called for charges against individuals accused of supporting Palestine Action to be dropped.
In contrast, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council raised alarm over the verdict, saying that they were “deeply concerned” by the ruling and supported the home secretary’s decision to appeal.
The case now moves into its next phase as the government prepares to challenge the High Court’s decision, which has left many administration officials disappointed.
Until the appeal process is resolved, the unusual situation remains in which a proscription deemed unlawful by the High Court continues to carry legal force. . . .