Australia can switch from fossil fuel exports to renewables, says next Cop president
Australia can transition from fossil fuel exports to renewables, says Chris Bowen at climate conference.
The Guardian World1 min read
Government defends Palestine Action ban after High Court ruled it unlawful
TL;DR
The government is defending its ban on Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws, following a High Court ruling that deemed the ban unlawful. A Court of Appeal panel is reviewing whether to uphold the government's proscription of the group.
Key points
- Government defends ban on Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws
- High Court ruled the ban unlawful two months ago
- Court of Appeal reviewing the government's proscription
- Barristers argue overturning the ban limits counter-terrorism powers
- Government distinguishes Palestine Action from groups like Hamas
The government has defended its ban on Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation, two months after the High Court ruled it was unlawful.
A rare five-judge panel at the Court of Appeal is considering whether February's decision to reject Palestine Action's proscription should stand.
Opening a three-day defence of the home secretary's proscription of the group, barristers told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that overturning it would limit ministers' counter-terrorism powers.
The government's lawyer also told the court Palestine Action was "not Hamas or the IRA, where there is an almost unique overlap between those who are engaged in the terrorist activity and those who support it".
He had been asked by the second most senior judge in England and Wales, Sir Geoffrey Vos, if he accepted that the ban was legally unusual because of its impact on the right to protest by otherwise legitimate demonstrators.
Sir James Eadie KC said: "The rights of those who would otherwise wish to support Palestine Action are affected... maybe they don't even support the more extreme activities and/or wing of Palestine Action.
"But the whole nature and structure of the proscription regime is designed to recognise that there is value in preventing precisely that sort of support."
He also told the court that Parliament had given ministers discretion over how to take such decisions once there had been an expert finding that an organisation was "concerned in terrorism".
"Parliament was alive to the fact that those powers conferred on the secretary of state were significant powers," Sir James told the judges.
"Palestine Action met the statutory definition of being concerned in terrorism.
"The secretary of state's expert advice was that Palestine Action's activities were on an escalating trajectory of seriousness."
In February, three High Court judges found Palestine Action "promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality" and could not be described as an "ordinary protest group".
But those facts did not justify the ban under terrorism legislation, they concluded.
They ruled that the home secretary's ban had breached her own policy which limits how and when she could use the exceptional power - although the group remains banned for now while the government appeals.
The ban came a month after members broke into RAF Brize Norton and vandalised jets as part of a protest against the war in Gaza.
The group's main objective since its founding in 2020 has been to target the UK subsidiary of Israel's largest defence firm, Elbit.
Throughout the legal battle, lawyers for the group's co-founder Huda Ammori have said it is a legitimate protest group involved in civil disobedience.
The Court of Appeal was told in written submissions that between August 2024 and the June 2025 ban, Palestine Action members were involved in 158 "direct action events" against 48 different business premises.
Q&A
What was the High Court's ruling on Palestine Action's ban?
The High Court ruled that the government's ban on Palestine Action was unlawful.
Why is the government defending the ban on Palestine Action?
The government argues that overturning the ban would limit its counter-terrorism powers.
What is the significance of the Court of Appeal's review of Palestine Action's ban?
The Court of Appeal's review could determine whether the government's proscription of Palestine Action remains in effect.
How does the government differentiate Palestine Action from groups like Hamas?
The government claims that Palestine Action is not comparable to Hamas or the IRA, as there is not a unique overlap between supporters and those engaged in terrorist activities.
