The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, will have her appeal against the high court ruling that the ban on Palestine Action was unlawful heard in the court of appeal this week, beginning on Tuesday. The Guardian explains the history of the case and what is at stake.
Why was Palestine Action banned?
In June of last year, Mahmood’s predecessor Yvette Cooper announced plans to ban Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act, three days after it claimed responsibility for a break-in at RAF Brize Norton, during which red paint was sprayed into the turbines of two military aircraft.
Palestine Action, which targeted the UK factories of Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems and others it said were complicit in the killing of Palestinians, said it targeted the RAF Voyager planes because they were being used in refuelling to support Israeli military operations, although a UK defence source said they were not involved in such activities.
Cooper sought to justify the ban, the first on a direct action group under the Terrorism Act, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State and Boko Haram, by saying that Palestine Action had “a long history of unacceptable criminal damage” and was a threat to national security. Previously activists had been prosecuted for offences such as criminal damage.
The ban came into effect on 5 July, despite criticism from UN experts, civil liberty groups, lawyers and MPs from across the political divide who claimed it set a dangerous precedent by conflating protest with terrorism.
What happened next?
Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, brought a legal challenge at the high court seeking judicial review of the lawfulness of the ban.
At the same time, a record-breaking civil disobedience campaign began, coordinated by Defend Our Juries (DOJ), which organised demonstrations at which protesters held placards saying: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” By the time of the high court’s judgment, according to DOJ, more than 2,700 people had been arrested for alleged support of a terrorist group under section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
The arrest of protesters, including clergy, pensioners and military veterans, prompted further criticism of the ban.
There were also accusations of police overreach. Protester Laura Murton eventually won compensation from the police after she was threatened with arrest by armed officers for supporting Palestine Action after holding a sign saying “free Gaza” and a Palestinian flag.
Jon Farley was arrested for carrying a placard reproducing a graphic from Private Eye magazine, which said: “Unacceptable Palestine Action: spraying military planes. Acceptable Palestine Action: shooting Palestinians queueing for food.” Grassroots pro-Palestine organisations unaffiliated to Palestine Action had their bank accounts frozen.
What did the high court rule?
Three senior judges found that the decision to ban Palestine Action was unlawful on two grounds. The first was that proscription was a “very significant interference” with the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The second was that it was a breach of the home secretary’s own policy on proscription, which means the criteria she used when deciding to ban Palestine Action were not consistent with the requirements set out in policy.
However, after allowing the home secretary permission to appeal, the judges said that the ban should remain in place pending the appeal.
What is at stake at the court of appeal?
Because of the high court’s decision not to quash the ban, for now it remains an offence to show support for Palestine Action, punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 14 years, for more serious offences under section 12 of the Terrorism Act. After the high court judgment the Met initially said it would stop arresting people for alleged support of Palestine Action but then changed its stance and arrested 532 people at a DOJ protest earlier this month.
Whether the 3,000-plus people arrested, of whom more than 500 have been charged, will stand trial remains uncertain until it is determined whether it was unlawful to ban the organisation they are accused of supporting.
More broadly, it will have ramifications for the right to protest, already diminished by several new laws in recent years. It could determine whether other direct action protest groups that cause damage to property might face proscription in the future.