Palestine Action appeal judgement tomorrow

Ajouté : 2026-04-29

[00:00:02]The case turns on a single question and will be the judgment will be given I believe tomorrow. It has wide consequences. When does protest cross the legal threshold into terrorism and the judgment expected from the court of appeal will shape that answer. I I want to make three points very carefully.

[00:00:22]Firstly, the legal conflict at the heart of the case and then the constitutional stakes around the protest, the speech and state power and finally the practical consequences for policing politics and future disscent because we've been in a sort of limbo, political and practical limbo overprotest ever since uh this decision was made by Iet Cooper to prescribe Palestine action.

[00:00:52]Firstly, the legal conflict. The dispute arises from the decision by the home office under the terrorism act 2000 to prescribe Palestine action. Prescription is not symbolic. It criminalizes membership support and even certain forms of expression. The maximum penalties reach 14 years. And the high court led led by Victoria Sharp found two key things. First, that the ban imposed a very significant interference with rights to speech and assembly. and second that the decision was disproportionate in the light of the group's conduct. The judges noted a crucial distinction. Much of the activity involved criminal damage, not terrorism in the strict statutory sense.

[00:01:35]And this judgment is being appealed by the home office and there is uncertainty or there was uncertainty about what that meant. Initially the police suspended their arrests and then suddenly they re re-imposed their arrests quite uh quite without warning. In fact, the Home Office represented by James Edy rejects the analysis of the High Court. It argues its argument rests on three claims. Parliament has already determined that prescription is a legitimate tool. The line between violent crime and terrorism is not clear-cut. Ordinary criminal law failed to prevent escalation. On the other side, Huda Amorei and her council Raza Hussein argue that the ban destroys a protest movement rather than regulates it. They stress that less restrictive measures existed such as injunctions and prosecutions for specific offenses. This is not a technical disagreement. it as a clash between two legal philosophies.

[00:02:43]One emphasizes preventative state power, the other emphasizes proportionality and restraint. But in terms of proportion, what I don't fully understand is if it's so easy to prescribe Palestine action and any form of um support for Palestine action, why is it so difficult and why is the government so cautious about prescribing the IRGC particularly when our allies have already uh done the same thing in Europe uh and in America I believe. Uh so it it makes it makes no sense to prescribe what seems um what what seems to be covered by other by other forms of uh legal restraint and not to prescribe the IRGC which doesn't seem fully covered by the legal restraints that we've got in this country. And what it what this has led to is the arrest of retired vicers and elderly granny's and the optics are not attractive.

[00:03:52]So secondly, the constitutional stakes here. The case sits within a broader shift in British public law. Over the past decade, Parliament has expanded powers to restrict protest. Public order acts, policing reforms, and counterterror measures have all widened the state's reach. The high court's language was striking. It spoke of very significant interference with fundamental rights. That phrase matters.

[00:04:20]It signals that the court saw the ban not as marginal but as structurally transformative.

[00:04:26]And the government response is equally revealing. It stresses parliamentary sovereignty and executive discretion.

[00:04:32]The claim is simple. If parliament has authorized prescription, courts should hesitate before second-guessing. And this creates a tension familiar to constitutional lawyers. Courts defend rights through proportionality.

[00:04:47]Governments defend authority through mandate and statute. And so the evidence before the court shows the real effect of that tension. Thousands arrested, protesters detained for holding placards, arrested for a piece of cardboard and not terribly welldesigned.

[00:05:07]Reports of self censorship, even the Metropolitan Police shifting its stance after the high court ruling and then reversing again unaccountably once the appeal was um was was in process. uh and on once the once the once once the process for getting that appeal had been granted uh we don't know the result of the appeal yet we will learn that on Thursday.

[00:05:33]What I find more worrying is the failure to to to to to reflect on the on the inadequacy really of of of of the of the process of dispute and dispute in the 21st century. There are many ways to protest and the uh the protest meeting, the marches seems to me to be very much a 19th century hangover.

[00:06:11]Um and maybe we should be using other tools. Maybe we should be using the internet more creatively to uh what is a protest for? protest is to engage with ideas. It's to is to demonstrate uh momentum and the breadth of concern about an issue and to and and and and to start a political discussion.

[00:06:43]There are other ways to do that. And I think the constraints now imposed on marches and the dangers of marches to public order and the risk of um infiltration by genuine terrorism.

[00:07:02]I I I I think make should make us think that there are other ways to engage. We need to be more creative. the the symbolic moment um came in this case when a letter signed by academics and public figures was presented to the court. Of course, the judges chose to ignore it. That decision reflects a judicial instinct.

[00:07:24]Judges resist being drawn into political theater. But the very existence of that letter now shows how far this case has moved beyond a narrow legal dispute.

[00:07:35]And the question is no longer therefore I think what what Palestine action has done. The question is what the state is entitled to do in response. So thirdly and finally the practical consequences of this. Whatever the court of appeal decides the effects will be immediate and concrete. If the appeal succeeds the government position is strengthened.

[00:07:55]Prescription becomes a viable tool against direct action groups that engage in serious property damage. And we will see Palestine action will not be the end of the matter. There will be other groups prescribed. Police will gain confidence in making arrests under terrorism powers. Future governments may extend the approach to other movements.

[00:08:13]Climate activists, infrastructure protesters, and others could face similar classification if their tactics escalate. If the appeal fails, the consequences are equally significant.

[00:08:24]The government will face a judicial rebuke on proportionality. Existing prosecutions will probably collapse.

[00:08:31]Thousands of arrests will sit on uncertain ground. More importantly, the threshold for terrorism will be clarified. Property damage even when organized and politically motivated will not easily qualify as terrorism. There is also an institutional consequence. A defeat would signal that courts are willing to constrain the executive even in the sensitive field of national security. that has ripple effects across other areas including surveillance, policing, and public order. Finally, there is the political dimension. This case intersects with the wider debate about the Gaza conflict, armed supply chains, and protest movements in Britain. The state insists that support for Palestine remains lawful, but not support for this organization.

[00:09:18]Critics respond that the distinction collapses in practice once expression becomes criminalized. And this is why the case has drawn such attention. It is not only about one group. It is about the boundary between disscent and illegality. And the conclusion therefore is that this ruling will define how British law classifies modern protest movements that combine ideology with disruption. It will test the resilience of civil liberties under pressure. and it will show whether the courts are prepared to impose limits on executive power in the name of proportionality.

[00:09:56]The judgment will not end the argument.

[00:09:59]It will simply set terms on which the argument continues.