Legal Challenge too Palestine Action Ban Could impact Fate of Hundreds Arrested
The fate of over 1,600 people arrested for allegedly supporting Palestine Action (PA) hangs in the balance as the High Court considers whether to allow a full judicial review of the group’s proscription. The Home Office is attempting to block the review, arguing existing appeal mechanisms are sufficient.
Palestine Action was banned on July 5th, placed alongside groups like Islamic State and the neo-Nazi National action. The ban prompted a legal challenge led by Tahrir Ammori.
sir James Eadie KC,representing the home Office,argued the High Court’s initial decision to allow a judicial review was incorrect,citing the existing process for challenging proscription: an appeal to the Home Secretary followed by review by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Poac). He stated in written submissions that Ammori’s case held ”nothing extraordinary” justifying bypassing this established process.
However, Raza Husain KC, representing ammori, countered that the case is “unique,” emphasizing the proscription of a protest group with significant public support and the resulting consequences. He highlighted concerns raised by mr Justice Chamberlain that poac wouldn’t hear the case until mid-next year,while a judicial review could be completed as early as November 25-27.
Husain argued a judicial review is crucial due to the “ongoing and irremediable chilling of speech and assembly” caused by the ban, the impact on ongoing criminal cases, and the fact that Poac cannot offer redress to the hundreds already arrested. He stated that a successful judicial review,resulting in the ban being quashed,would render any arrests,charges,and convictions related to support for PA “nullities.”
Currently, 138 individuals have been charged following the 1,600+ arrests.
During the hearing, judges questioned what would happen to those arrested if Poac were to overturn the ban. Eadie conceded there was “not a clear and obvious answer,” suggesting convictions prior to any de-proscription could potentially stand. He maintained that Parliament intended Poac’s jurisdiction to be equivalent to that of the High Court, eliminating any advantage to pursuing a judicial review.
Ammori, speaking before the hearing, described the Home Office’s attempt to block the review as an “alarming attempt to prevent judicial scrutiny” of what she called an “extreme and unprecedented decision.”
The panel of three judges, led by the Lady Chief Justice, Sue carr, indicated they aim to deliver a judgment next month.
