| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful 11:06 - Feb 13 with 2799 views | Kievthegreat |
The proscribing of Palestine Action has been ruled "Unlawful" and the High Court have recommended it be quashed:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/liv
Commentary from Lawyer David Allen Green (it's a whole thread):
ttps://bsky.app/profile/davidallengreen.bsky.social/post/3meqbdd3ims2e [Post edited 14 Feb 11:09]
|  | | |  |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 08:46 - Feb 14 with 339 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 22:40 - Feb 13 by ZapatasMoustache |
I believe it’s sub judice so I’m not going to say what I think *did* happen but has what you claim been proven in court? |
You stated that the police officer having her back broken by a sledgehammer didn’t happen. It did. The defendant claimed self defence.
In you second paragraph you have shown public support for the actions of a still prescribed terrorist group on a social media platform. That is a criminal offence. |  |
| |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 09:18 - Feb 14 with 305 views | DJR |
The OP mentions David Allen Green but I couldn't see a link.
But I have come across an article from him which concludes.
"The government has said it intends to appeal, and ministers will likely throw even more resources at the case. And the appeal courts may be more sympathetic or deferent to the executive. The government may still ultimately win.
But the core problem, which is apparent from the detail set out in the judgment, is that the government may have overreached when using terrorism law intended mainly for international terrorist groups for dealing with the activities of Palestine Action. On any view, the Home Office pushed the law to the limit—and the High Court today found it had pushed the law too far."
His comment chimes with the comment I made about Starmer's judgment being lacking in taking the approach that was taken given the likelihood of failure, and I am sure Home Office lawyers would have advised of the risks.
One issue for me at the time was the shoe-horning of Palestine Action into the Terrorism Act especially given the consequence that it had in relation to people only holding up placards. And in this connection David Allen Green has written a further article which states this.
"Third, the government really only has itself to blame.
Here I mean both the government in general as well as the current administration.
In 2019 the government widened the scope of the relevant Terrorism law to include expressions of support for a proscribed organisation. (Technically this was done by parliament, but at the government’s behest.)
It must have seemed a good, illiberal idea at the time.
But it meant if an organisation was proscribed for one purpose – to target its organisation, membership and fund-raisers – it also criminalised expression of support too.
It became a one-size fits all provision which meant any proscription automatically infringed the right to free expression of those who were not organisers, members or fund-raisers.
This in turn meant that a court – like today – would look at any proscription with anxious scrutiny.
By wanting to prohibit more and more, the government made any proscription more exposed to legal challenge."
This confirms my view at the time that, if the government were to take action, the better approach would have been to have bespoke legislation for direct action groups such as Palestine Action, or to have at least disapplied the offence of support. But that would have required primary legislation, and the government opted for the supposedly easier approach.
And here's a link to Green's second article which is well worth a read.
https://davidallengreen.com/20 [Post edited 14 Feb 9:22]
|  | | |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 09:21 - Feb 14 with 292 views | ZapatasMoustache |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 08:46 - Feb 14 by GlasgowBlue |
You stated that the police officer having her back broken by a sledgehammer didn’t happen. It did. The defendant claimed self defence.
In you second paragraph you have shown public support for the actions of a still prescribed terrorist group on a social media platform. That is a criminal offence. |
Okay |  | | |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 11:04 - Feb 14 with 202 views | DJR |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 18:37 - Feb 13 by redrickstuhaart |
Couple of key points that are often not appreciated by lay people:
1- Parliament is indeed sovereign. It could pass a law that says that the definition of terrorist organisation is in the absolute personal discretion of the prime minister and that any laws in conflict with that approach be removed from the statute book. The Courts would then almost certainly have refrained from interfering. Hopefully our democracy and parliament is strong enough that such things would never pass, for obvious reasons.
2- Judicial review does not mean a "review by judges". The courts cannot simply look at somethign and decide whether its okay or not. They don't have the last say on a law or decision generally. There are very strict parameters for judicial review which is the name for a particular court process designed to consider decisions of public bodies to check whether they have follwoed their own processes properly and whether the decision is in fact lawful, by reference to the relevant laws. JR is succesful only where a decision is illegal, procedurally flawed, or patently irrational. In this instance, the issue was that the Home secretary did not follow her own procedures and also that the decision was contrary to the human rights act. [Post edited 13 Feb 19:02]
|
To expand on your second point, I came across an article from Kingsley Napley which contained the following passages.
The court does not have the power to strike down primary legislation given this has been subject to the full legislative process of Parliament, with the exception of its limited powers to either disapply primary legislation which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or make a declaration of incompatibility.
The position is very different with respect to secondary legislation. The usual range of procedural and substantive grounds is available to claimants seeking judicial review of secondary legislation, including:
It was not made within the scope of the power of the enabling primary legislation;
When it was made, irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations were not taken into account;
The legislation is irrational;
It was not made in accordance with the correct procedure or is otherwise procedurally unfair, including any consultation undertaken prior to introduction of the legislation; or
It was made in breach of human rights.
If one or more grounds are established, the High Court may order that the whole or part of the relevant piece of legislation is quashed, leaving the Government to reconsider and remake the legislation with reference to the lessons learnt from the High Court proceedings. [Post edited 14 Feb 11:06]
| | | |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 11:19 - Feb 14 with 185 views | Kievthegreat |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 09:18 - Feb 14 by DJR |
The OP mentions David Allen Green but I couldn't see a link.
But I have come across an article from him which concludes.
"The government has said it intends to appeal, and ministers will likely throw even more resources at the case. And the appeal courts may be more sympathetic or deferent to the executive. The government may still ultimately win.
But the core problem, which is apparent from the detail set out in the judgment, is that the government may have overreached when using terrorism law intended mainly for international terrorist groups for dealing with the activities of Palestine Action. On any view, the Home Office pushed the law to the limit—and the High Court today found it had pushed the law too far."
His comment chimes with the comment I made about Starmer's judgment being lacking in taking the approach that was taken given the likelihood of failure, and I am sure Home Office lawyers would have advised of the risks.
One issue for me at the time was the shoe-horning of Palestine Action into the Terrorism Act especially given the consequence that it had in relation to people only holding up placards. And in this connection David Allen Green has written a further article which states this.
"Third, the government really only has itself to blame.
Here I mean both the government in general as well as the current administration.
In 2019 the government widened the scope of the relevant Terrorism law to include expressions of support for a proscribed organisation. (Technically this was done by parliament, but at the government’s behest.)
It must have seemed a good, illiberal idea at the time.
But it meant if an organisation was proscribed for one purpose – to target its organisation, membership and fund-raisers – it also criminalised expression of support too.
It became a one-size fits all provision which meant any proscription automatically infringed the right to free expression of those who were not organisers, members or fund-raisers.
This in turn meant that a court – like today – would look at any proscription with anxious scrutiny.
By wanting to prohibit more and more, the government made any proscription more exposed to legal challenge."
This confirms my view at the time that, if the government were to take action, the better approach would have been to have bespoke legislation for direct action groups such as Palestine Action, or to have at least disapplied the offence of support. But that would have required primary legislation, and the government opted for the supposedly easier approach.
And here's a link to Green's second article which is well worth a read.
https://davidallengreen.com/20 [Post edited 14 Feb 9:22]
|
Apologies, his Blue sky account is set to be visible only to logged in Blue sky users so wasn't showing on the post. I've put a link missing the "h" at the front for people to look at if they have Blue sky.
I'd also add that the Court were not at all impressed by Palestine Action and it is not any form of vindication of them and their methods, but as you've pointed out about pushing Anti-terror laws beyond their reasonable limits. Quote from the judgement summary:
“[Palestine Action’s] campaign is intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business. The campaign has not been pursued with restraint. The wide range of targets is significant. It lays bare that Palestine Action’s campaign and pursuit of criminal damage is designed to intimidate the persons and businesses targeted so they end their commercial relationships with Elbit. Palestine Action is not engaged in any exercise of persuasion, or at least not the type of persuasion that is consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.”
That's a very roundabout way of saying that their direct action is not legitimate protest in a democratic society. That they still found in PAs favour potentially shows just how far out of line the Government was. | | | |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 11:20 - Feb 14 with 182 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Palestine Action win Judicial Review. Proscribing Ruled Unlawful on 11:04 - Feb 14 by DJR |
To expand on your second point, I came across an article from Kingsley Napley which contained the following passages.
The court does not have the power to strike down primary legislation given this has been subject to the full legislative process of Parliament, with the exception of its limited powers to either disapply primary legislation which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights or make a declaration of incompatibility.
The position is very different with respect to secondary legislation. The usual range of procedural and substantive grounds is available to claimants seeking judicial review of secondary legislation, including:
It was not made within the scope of the power of the enabling primary legislation;
When it was made, irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations were not taken into account;
The legislation is irrational;
It was not made in accordance with the correct procedure or is otherwise procedurally unfair, including any consultation undertaken prior to introduction of the legislation; or
It was made in breach of human rights.
If one or more grounds are established, the High Court may order that the whole or part of the relevant piece of legislation is quashed, leaving the Government to reconsider and remake the legislation with reference to the lessons learnt from the High Court proceedings. [Post edited 14 Feb 11:06]
|
Indeed. It is perhaps unfortunate that the name "judicial review" leads many to believe it is literally a process where the Court gets to review any laws and decide whether they should exist or be applied, effectively having the last say! [Post edited 14 Feb 11:20]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
