In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.
The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.
Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription
Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.
At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”
On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”
Hellbound and Down 