Palestine Action latest: Labour MPs hit out at Starmer’s ‘draconian’ ban after High Court rules it unlawful

The Independent’s home affairs correspondent Holly Bancroft reports:

Lui Asquith, associate in the regulation and public law team at law firm Russell-Cooke, LLP, has said the decision by the court is a “significant” one.

“The Ammori judgment is a significant one, which highlights the role of the Courts in scrutinising government decisions, even where they have passed through Parliament without challenge,” she said.

Ms Asquith added: "The Court has not yet determined what order to make, and until it does (in the next week or two) Palestine Action remains a proscribed organisation. While this procedurally routine, it is an oddity – the rights-infringing proscription stands until the court says otherwise.

“Seeing as an appeal application by the government is inevitable, it will be interesting to see if it tries to argue the order should stay in place until the appeal is heard."

Palestine Action’s ban under terrorism legislation has been ruled unlawful by the High Court in a humiliating blow for the government, but the ban will remain in place until a further order by the courts.

Huda Ammori, co-founder of the group, took the Home Office to court over the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws, with her lawyers saying that the move was unprecedented.

Since the proscription last July, thousands of people have been arrested for holding up placards in support of Palestine Action. Hundreds of trials are expected throughout this year and into the next for those accused of taking part in protests, but they face being upended by the High Court’s ruling.

The Independent’s home affairs correspondent Holly Bancroft has the full report on the ruling below:

Our political correspondent Athena Stavrou reports:

The prime minister is facing criticism from MPs within his own party after the High Court ruled his government’s ban on Palestine Action was unlawful.

A number of Labour MPs have welcomed the court’s decision, and hit out at Sir Keir Starmer’s “draconian” ban on the group under anti-terrorism laws.

Diane Abbott said the ban was a “democratic outrage” as she urged the government not to “bring themselves into further disrepute” by pursuing an appeal.

She said: “Decency, the and opposition to genocide won. Authoritarianism lost.”

Andy McDonald said the proscription was a “poor political decision” by the government and warned the home secretary’s decision to “fight” the decision will “compound the error”.

Richard Burgon, who voted against the ban in parliament last year, said he “warned the government” of the consequences of the ban, and echoed calls that the government should not appeal the decision.

John McDonnell, Labour’s former shadow chancellor, called the proscription an “assault on our civil liberties”, while Labour MP Nadia Whittome said she was “extremely relieved” by the court’s decision and Apsana Begum said the verdict marked an “opportunity for the Government to change course”.

The Conservatives have welcomed the Government’s decision to appeal against the High Court’s decision on Palestine Action and called for tighter rules on proscription.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the group engaged in “organised political violence and cannot be tolerated”.

He added: “Palestine Action’s campaign is built on intimidation, destruction and violence. The public expect the law to protect them.

“Conservatives welcome the Home Office’s appeal to this ruling. There can be no hesitation when public safety and national security are at stake.”

Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said it was “time to tighten up the rules on the proscription of such groups to ensure they cannot get away with such disgraceful behaviour”.

Our political correspondent Athena Stavrou reports:

After the High Court ruled the government’s ban on Palestine Action in unlawful, legal experts have explained what the decision could mean in practical terms.

Alice Hardy, partner in Bindmans public law and human rights team, said the judgement means the order banning support for Palestine Action will remain in effect for while parties make submissions to the court.

“It’s possible that the order could remain enforced for quite some time, because if the government does get permission to appeal…either from the High Court or from the Court of Appeal, then it will be as long as it takes for that appeal to be heard and decided, and that could be many months,” she told The Independent.

Speaking about what the ruling could mean for those already arrested under the ban, she said: “Of the thousands of people who are awaiting trial, those trials have already been postponed, and I expect that's because the court would very much like to know what the outcome of this judgement was, and now they will want to know the outcome of any appeal.

“Because I think the court is very nervous of sending people to prison for committing offences that turn out not to have been offences. It’s an unprecedented situation.”

The Independent’s home affairs correspondent Holly Bancroft reports:

Areeba Hamid, director at Greenpeace UK, called on the Crown Prosecution Service to "immediately drop the terror changes against the peaceful protesters who opposed this ban".

She added: "Using terror laws to shut down a protest group is the stuff of dystopian novels. Arresting thousands of protesters - many of them pensioners who were simply holding signs - is the stuff of satire. Hopefully this ruling will deliver a much-needed reality check".

Sara Chitseko at the Open Rights Group welcomed the High Court's decision, saying: "The proscription not only criminalised political protest but had far-reaching consequences for freedom of expression online, and for the implementation of counter terror programmes such as Prevent."

The Crown Prosecution Service has said they will not comment on today's ruling.

Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Laurence Taylor said: “Policing’s role is to enforce the law, and to do so without fear or favour, as the public would expect. Proscription is, and always has been, a matter for the government. Following today’s judgment, the Home Secretary has stated she intends to lodge an appeal.

“The court has ordered that the proscription order remains in force until further order of the court. We recognise this is an unusual set of circumstances, and until further order by the court, Counter Terrorism Policing will approach enforcement pragmatically and proportionately, and will continue to work with forces across the country.”