Tag: High Court

Palestine Action centre of the news


115th vigil took place following a momentous week in the courts

February 2026

We discussed in a previous post the High Court’s decision that the government’s decision to ban Palestine Action was disproportionate. The ban on them has not been lifted as the government seemed determined to appeal and some experts say the Appeal Court may overturn it. The government seem passionate about supressing dissent on this matter – obsessive even – and the possible reasons for this will be discussed in a future post.

Around 30 attended the 115th vigil yesterday and the ‘recognition factor’ by passers-by was higher than usual probably because it was light, Over 50 took note and a few took pictures. A video can be viewed here, with thanks to Peter Gloyns.

Once again we note that the local MP, Mr John Glen has failed to put in an appearance and despite 115 vigils attended by hundreds of his constituents, has never once mentioned them in his weekly Salisbury Journal column. He is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, thought to be the largest and best funded of all the lobby organisations in parliament. Although the Conservatives are the largest of such groups, other parties have members as well. It goes some way to explaining why there is silence on the question of genocide in Gaza and little noise about settler violence in the West Bank.

An interesting event took place on the BBC’s Any Questions? programme on Saturday 14th February. Perhaps the programme should be relabelled ‘Some Questions‘ because one audience member stood up and asked “What does the panel think about the BBC not expressing the truth about the genocide in Palestine?” This was not the question she had submitted on the card so it was hastily ignored and the original question about the High Court’s decision discussed instead. It seemed to reveal a BBC deeply nervous of the whole issue of Gaza. A question about the BBC’s poor record would almost certainly never have been allowed. There were a number of disturbances from the audience during the programme talked over by the presenter Alex Forsyth.

“Valentine’s gift to every thug and anti-Semite”

A large part of the ensuing Any Answers? focused on the Palestine Action decision. Most were in favour of the judgement and a handful not. Overall, it seems that the public finds the decision to call them a terrorist organisation over the top. This view is not supported by the Daily Mail among others who concludes that the decision is a ‘Valentine’s gift to every thug and anti-Semite who cheerleads for Palestine Action‘. It found the decision ‘baffling’ and quotes a government source saying it was ‘bonkers’ [accessed 15th February]. It correctly notes that the decision could go the the Supreme Court and take months to decide.

Image courtesy of Peter Gloyns

Previous posts:

0

Palestine Action ban lifted: for now


High Court finds the ban on Palestine Action ‘disproportionate’

February 2026

The High Court has ruled that the ban on Palestine Action is disproportionate and banning it unlawful. The ban remains in place however as the government is minded to appeal the decision which will take place later this month. The decision is a major victory for the right of free speech and the right of assembly. Liberty and Amnesty have both appealed to the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, to respect the decision. It represents a severe blow to the government. Around 2,500 have been arrested during protests.

It is worth remembering the way PA was banned by the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. Almost certainly she knew the likelihood of achieving a successful vote in parliament was unlikely, so they were lumped in with two extreme white supremacist groups, the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russia Imperial Movement. Labour members were then whipped to pass the measure. Local MPs Sir Desmond Swayne and Danny Kruger both voted with the government. John Glen MP is not shown as voting. At one stage, the Home Office attempted to suggest they were funded by Iran, a story The Times and the Daily Telegraph fell for, but which they now no longer support.

The Board of Deputies for British Jews are reported to be extremely concerned by the ruling. Lord Sumption interview on the BBC’s PM programme thought the decision vulnerable on appeal. He thought the problem for the government was that the ‘overreach’ of the legislation which meant those holding banners or placards were arrested. He thought PA a ‘thoroughly nasty organisation’.

The government seems particularly determined to clamp down on this organisation and to continue its support for Israel despite the fearful loss of life in Gaza now put at over 72,000. Violence in the West Bank continues apace with estimates of over 1,000 deaths with many more driven from their homes by settler violence.

Elbit Systems, the Israeli arms firm with plants in the UK, has been at the centre of the protests. It manufactures drones which are alleged to be used in Gaza to commit war crimes, a claim Elbit denies.

This is undoubted good news but whether it will survive the Appeal Court remains to be seen. One way or another, by legislating against protest, arresting supporters doing no more than wave placards, and planting fake stories in gullible and compliant media, the government seems determined to support Israel whatever it does and how ever many people it kills or drives from their homes.

Sources: Sky News, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, CAAT, Jewish Chronicle.

Recent posts:

14

Amnesty Critiques High Court’s Decision on Arms Exports


High Court rules against action by human rights groups

June 2025

The High Court has ruled that sales of components for the F35 aircraft can continue to be sold to Israel. The judgement has come as a big disappointment for campaigning organisations including Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Al-Haq and Amnesty. The judges said that the decision was properly for the government to decide. They said:

‘[The] issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza.’

Global Legal Action Network who brought the case with the support of the three British human rights

organisations which are parties to the case, argued that under the Arms Trade Treaty and the Genocide Convention, the UK, as a state party to both, is obligated to stop sending the parts and that, by failing to follow its obligations, is threatening the rule of law globally.

Amnesty statement

In response to the verdict, Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, said:

“We are disappointed by today’s ruling, but the court has been clear that while it does not have the authority to make a judgment on UK exports of F-35 arms parts, this does not absolve the executive and Parliament from their responsibilities to act.

The UK has a legal obligation to help prevent and punish genocide and yet it continues to authorise the export of weapons to Israel despite the clear risks that these weapons will be used to commit genocide.

This judgment does not change the facts on the ground, nor does it absolve the UK government of its responsibilities under international law. The risk that UK arms may be used to facilitate serious international crimes remains alarmingly high. If the courts will not intervene, then the moral and legal burden on the Government and Parliament to act – before more lives are lost and further irreparable harm is done – is even greater.

“The horrifying reality in Gaza is unfolding in full view of the world: entire families obliterated, civilians killed in so-called safe zones, hospitals reduced to rubble, and a population driven into starvation by a cruel blockade and forced displacement. These are not isolated tragedies; they are part of a systematic assault on a besieged population.

The UK must end all arms transfers to Israel if we are serious as a country about our commitments to international law and human rights.

Many of those who attend the weekly vigil in Salisbury will find this decision deeply disappointing.

Gaza documentary

The documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack is to be shown on Channel 4 on 2nd July at 10pm. The BBC declined to show it saying it did not meet its high editorial standards. Members of staff met Tim Davie the Director General of the BBC at a virtual meeting and many expressed their disquiet at the decision to pull the documentary. The BBC denies claims it is frightened to air such programmes.

Sources: Middle East Eye; Yahoo News; Reuters; Guardian.

Recent posts:

Thought of becoming a subscriber?

0

High Court to decide on arms to Israel


The appeal is to be heard on May 13

May 2025

UPDATE: 8 May. The Foreign Secretary, David Lammy was interviewed on the PM programme yesterday evening [BBC Radio 4] and made the claim, twice, that he had decided to suspend arms sales to Israel. This was not true and regrettably, he was not challenged on either occasion by the interviewer, Evan Davies. Mr Lammy should be thankful that he had such an unchallenging interview, not just on this falsehood but on a range of other matters as well.

The appeal against the government’s decision to continue to supplying Israel with arms – and in particular, components for the F-35 – will be heard in the High Court starting on May 13th. The government is in something of a bind. The actions by Israel in Gaza are widely deplored and many contend amount to a war crime and genocide. But to offend the Americans by curtailing supplies of components for the F-35 used in Gaza is almost unthinkable for the government desperate as it is to curry favour with the Americans.

The action is being brought by Al Haq a human rights organisation based in Ramallah, and Global Legal Action Network consisting of lawyers and investigators which identifies and pursues legal actions against those involved in human rights violations. They have been joined by Amnesty, Oxfam GB and Human Rights Watch.

The latest edition of Campaign Against the Arms Trade (Issue 272, Spring 2025) discusses the issue of continuing military aid to Israel. It notes that ‘even our government has been forced to admit that is assesses Israel is not committed to complying with International Humanitarian Law‘. The case will be the biggest legal test of UK exports to Israel to date. They highlight an article in the Guardian by a former Foreign Office diplomat who described continued attempts by ministers to stonewall or play down evidence of what is happening in Gaza.

Over 52,000 have now been killed in the conflict. There are now reports of 57 deaths due to malnutrition mainly of children, the sick or the elderly. No aid is allowed in including food and necessary medical supplies. This has been the case now for over 60 days. Aid agencies stocks are depleted. A gloomy picture is painted on the situation in Haaretz.

We will follow the court case with great interest.

In addition to the supply of arms, there is the question of involvement of the RAF which has carried out over 250 overflights of Gaza (Declassified says 500). The chief of defence staff, Sir Tony Radakin was asked by a reporter from Declassified whether the RAF’s activities meant they were participating in Israel’s operations in Gaza? Answer came there none. They are not alone and the article reports that backbench MPs have sought answers without success. It is disturbing that the RAF are seemingly deeply involved in what is happening.

0

National Crime Agency breaks law


NCA admits not seeking Ministerial consent before supplying information to the Thai police

In 2014 there two British backpackers, Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, were murdered on a beach in Thailand and for days the press was full of the story.  It was reported at the time that the Thai police were extremely slow to react and allowed crucial evidence to be lost and for likely suspects to escape.  It was further alleged that the Thai authorities were reluctant to take the matter sufficiently seriously because of the possible damage to their tourist trade.

Three years later the case has again hit the headlines as it now appears that the National Crime Agency has been accused of supplying information to the Thai Police.  The significance is that two Burmese individuals, Zaw Lin and Wai Pho have been convicted of the murders and are likely to face execution by lethal injection.  The High Court in the UK found against the NCA for providing information which contributed to the likelihood of execution.  The UK government opposes capital punishment and there are strict rules governing the provision of information in these cases.  Ministerial authority is needed and in this case the NCA did not get this.

Doubts have been raised about the convictions as there is evidence of corruption, incompetence and the use of fabricated evidence used to secure a conviction.  The use of torture is also alleged.

A spokesman for Reprieve said:

It is bad enough that the National Crime Agency secretly handed over evidence to help secure death sentences in a country known for unfair trials and torture.  But they now admit they did this illegally, without any proper thought that their actions could contribute to a grave miscarriage of justice with two men now facing execution.  UK cooperation with foreign police and security forces should be open and transparent.  Government agencies shouldn’t have to be dragged through the courts for the public to know what is being done with their money.

Sources: The News; Reprieve; The Guardian; Press Association

If you live in the Salisbury area and are interested in campaigning on human rights issues we would be glad to welcome.  It is free to join the local group.  Keep and eye on this site, on Twitter  or Facebook for events and come along and make yourself known.

 

0

High Court hands down deeply disappointing decision


The British high Court today handed down a deeply disappointing and some might argue astonishing decision that arms sales to the Saudi Arabians represents no risk to human rights law.  The case was brought by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade CAAT and concerned the use of weapons sold to the Saudis and being used by them in the ‘forgotten war’ in Yemen.

We have in this blog been drawing attention to the terrible damage being done by the Saudis in Yemen who have used our weapons to bomb civilian targets in that country.  These are not isolated incidents or accidents, but part of what seems to be a plan which has seen the bombing of hospitals, refugee camps, schools, wedding ceremonies and market places – indeed anywhere where civilians are likely to congregate.  10,000 have now died there and the country is in crisis.  CNN has produced a short film (distressing please note) showing some of the dreadful effects of the war being waged.

Despite the considerable evidence that international human rights are being violated, that civilian targets are being targeted and banned UK produced BL-755 cluster munitions are being used, astonishingly the High Court ruled that:

The Secretary of State was ‘rationally entitled to conclude’ the coalition was not targeting civilians.

It further concluded:

Saudi Arabia was respecting humanitarian law and is in constructive dialogue with the UK about its processes and incidents of concern.  There was no real risk that there might be serious violations of International Humanitarian Law.

A CAAT said it was a ‘very disappointing verdict’ and that they were going to appeal.

If the ruling is not overturned then it will be regarded by Whitehall and Westminster as giving a green light to continue arming and supplying brutal dictators and human rights abusers.

An Amnesty International spokesman said:

The shameless arms supplies to Saudi Arabia … may amount to lucrative trade deals but the UK risks aiding abetting these terrible crimes.  This is a deeply disappointing outcome which gives a green light to the UK authorities – and potentially other arms suppliers – to continue authorising arms transfers to the Kingdom despite the clear risk they will be used to commit violations.  James Lynch, head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International (source: Washington Post)

It is difficult to ascribe a rational reason to the High Court’s decision.  True they had access to secret information which the rest of us cannot know.  But the evidence on the ground is compelling and has come from several different sources and experts.  And there is the human rights record of the Saudis themselves in their own country.  A record of executions, torture and amputations which puts them in a league of their own.

Behind it all is that they are major purchases of weapons and our biggest market for such materiel by far.  They are the tail that wags the dog.

Few can be happy that for the sake of jobs, weapons supplied by us are being used to cause such mayhem, death and misery in an already poor country.  We must sincerely hope that the Court of Appeal overturns this disgraceful decision.

Sources: the Independent; Washington Post; New York Times; the Guardian; CNN

 

 

 

 

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑