Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

Palestine Action Ban Upheld: Protesters Face Terrorism Charges After Appeal Ruling

The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling, declaring the ban on direct action group Palestine Action lawful. This decision means over 700 individuals charged under the Terrorism Act could now face prosecution, sparking anger among arrested protesters.

  • The Court of Appeal ruled the proscription of Palestine Action lawful, reversing an earlier High Court decision.
  • Over 700 individuals, among 3,000 arrested, now face potential prosecution under the Terrorism Act for alleged support of the group.
  • Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
  • Arrested protesters expressed devastation and defiance, with some vowing to continue their activism.
  • Human rights groups have criticised the ban, arguing it misuses counter-terrorism powers against direct action protest.

Protesters who have been arrested for allegedly supporting the direct action group Palestine Action have voiced their anger and disappointment following a Court of Appeal decision that upheld the lawfulness of the group's proscription. The ruling on Monday by five judges overturned a High Court judgment from February that had deemed the ban unlawful, reopening the possibility of prosecution for more than 700 individuals already charged under the Terrorism Act.

The reversal means that the immediate prospect of the ban being quashed and prosecutions discontinued, which had appeared feasible after the High Court's initial ruling, is now off the table. Despite this setback, Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, has stated her intention to appeal the latest decision to the Supreme Court, indicating a continued legal challenge against the proscription.

Among those affected is Deborah Hinton, 82, a former magistrate from Truro, Cornwall, who described the judgment as "devastating and shocking." Ms Hinton, who faces potential imprisonment under the Terrorism Act, stated she felt compelled to act, viewing it as her duty to take a stand against what she perceives as a move towards an authoritarian state. She highlighted the perceived misallocation of resources, criticising the expenditure on prosecuting protesters while the country's defence system faces funding challenges.

Many of those arrested were participating in 'Defend Our Juries' demonstrations, holding placards expressing opposition to genocide and support for Palestine Action. Marianne Sorrell, 81, from Wells, Somerset, recounted being held by police for nearly 27 hours, during which officers searched her home. She labelled Monday's judgment a "travesty of justice" and is considering further arrests for the same offence out of protest.

Both Ms Hinton and Ms Sorrell also expressed outrage over the recent lengthy custodial sentences handed down to four Palestine Action activists. These activists were jailed after a judge ruled there was a "terrorist connection" to their actions of damaging equipment at an Israeli arms manufacturer's UK factory. Father John McGowan, 75, arrested at a Parliament Square demonstration, echoed the anger but maintained his resolve, stating his conscience was his judge and he was prepared for prison.

Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr, in her written judgment, stated that the severity of the effects of proscription on individual rights to freedom of expression and assembly were outweighed by the importance of protecting national security and the rights and freedoms of others. This decision has also drawn renewed criticism from human rights organisations, with Amnesty's legal programme director, Tom Southerden, reiterating that the ban constitutes a "grave misuse of sweeping counter-terrorism powers" and is disproportionate.

Why this matters: This ruling has significant implications for freedom of protest and the use of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK, potentially setting a precedent for how direct action groups are handled by the legal system.

What this means for you: What this means for you: This case highlights ongoing debates about the balance between national security and the right to protest in the UK, potentially influencing future legislation and how public demonstrations are policed.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.