Fury as High Court judges' 'perverse and dangerous' ruling overturns terror ban on Palestine Action

Fury erupted at the "appalling" decision by three unelected judges who said the ban on Palestine Action was "disproportionate".

This is despite the court's own comments that Palestine Action “has organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism” and “lauded” those who took part.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood immediate announced that the government will appeal meaning hard-pressed taxpayers face extra costs on top of the current £700,000 bill.

Three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, and also including Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, ruled that the decision to proscribe the group involved “very significant interference” with protesters’ rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

After the bombshell High Court judgment, the Metropolitan Police said it would stop arresting peaceful protesters supporting the group - even though Palestine Action is still banned, as the court has allocated time for a government appeal.

Palestine Action was the first direct-action group to be banned under terror laws, putting it alongside the likes of al-Qaeda, Islamic State and extremist far-right groups, including National Action.

From July last year being a member of, or showing support for, the group became an offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Ms Mahmood, said: “The Court has acknowledged that Palestine Action has carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who have taken part in those acts and promoted the use of violence.   

“It has also concluded that Palestine Action is not an ordinary protest or civil disobedience group, and that its actions are not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.  

“For those reasons, I am disappointed by the Court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate."

The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) described the court's decision was “appalling.”

It said: “It is appalling that a court would be prepared to decriminalise an organisation whose sole purpose is to engage in criminal activity,.

“It demonstrates that law and order has not only broken down in this country, but that the criminal justice system is not fit for purpose.”

“For the Jewish community, which has borne the brunt of much of Palestine Action’s criminality, this is another sign that the legal system is simply not on their side and has neither the ability nor, it increasingly seems, the willingness, to protect them.”

Lord Walney, the former Government adviser on political violence, warned that the “deeply disappointing” verdict risked “sending a signal that far-Left activists can hold the country to ransom”.

“While Palestine Action has deployed violence less frequently than other proscribed groups, the criminal damage they systematically inflict clearly falls within the legal definition of terrorism,.

“However, this fiasco could be fixed if ministers accept and fast track my amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill currently in the Lords, that would allow groups dedicated to criminal sabotage to be banned without labelling them as terrorists.”

Following the announcement London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan told LBC he welcomes the fact "we have judges who are independent".

Asked whether the government should accept the ruling instead of appealing it, Sir Sadiq said: "One of the joys of living in our democracy, unlike other countries, is there are checks and balances on decisions made by politicians.

"I welcome the fact that we've got judges who are independent, not corruptible. Look at the evidence and form a conclusion.

"I note the judgement from the court today, but also I recognise that one of the joys of our country is also the right to appeal.

"And the Home Secretary doesn't agree with the judgement and so she's appealing that she's entitled to do so.

"In the meantime, I just say to everyone, we've got to respect the law. And the current law is, I'm afraid, it's a criminal offence.

"And so you've got to respect the law and don't break the law. If you break the law, I'm afraid the police will have no choice but to take action."

It comes as Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, told LBC that he feels the scope of what defines a terror organisation is adequate, but has to be applied "wisely".

"Imagine if you caused - or threatened to cause, millions or billions of pounds worth of damage to the economy. That could have a major effect on democracy, on the ability of politicians to pursue policies that they want to.

Asked whether property damage should be excluded under the definition of terrorism, he added: "I think that to exclude all property damage would be crazy.

"What if you took some paint and you slowly poured it onto Van Gogh sunflowers? Now, you could cause £32 million or £100 million worth of damage, but it wouldn't be violent.

"And I think you might say that doesn't really pass the sniff test. This doesn't look like terrorism, but if you went along to a huge warehouse containing a big, dense data centre and you burnt it to the ground and attacked it with hammers, you might say, yes, that's quite violent."

Read more: Man Utd boss Sir Jim Ratcliffe is right on immigration and UK is being 'colonised,' claims Reform UK’s Nadhim Zahawi

Read more: Flesh-eating virus leaves mum without a nose after Turkey teeth horror

After the hearing a Met Police spokesman said: “From a Metropolitan Police perspective, officers will continue to identify offences where support for Palestine Action is being expressed, but they will focus on gathering evidence of those offences and the people involved to provide opportunities for enforcement at a later date, rather than making arrests at the time.”

"This is the most proportionate approach we can take, acknowledging the decision reached by the court while recognising that proceedings are not yet fully concluded.

“This approach relates solely to the expression of support for Palestine Action. We will continue to intervene and make arrests where we see people crossing the line from lawful protest to intimidate, to damage property, to use violence, to stir up racial hatred or to commit other offences.”

Three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, ruled today that the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful.

In a summary of the High Court's decision, Dame Victoria said: "The court considered that the proscription of Palestine Action was disproportionate.

"A very small number of Palestine Action's activities amounted to acts of terrorism within the definition of section 1 of the 2000 Act.

"For these, and for Palestine Action's other criminal activities, the general criminal law remains available.

"The nature and scale of Palestine Action's activities falling within the definition of terrorism had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription.

"Proscription did result in ‌a significant interference ​with the ‌right to ⁠freedom of speech ⁠and the right to freedom ‌of ​assembly."

About a hundred people gathered outside the High Court building in central London are cheering and chanting "Free Palestine" after news broke that judges have ruled the Home Office's decision to ban Palestine Action under terrorism laws was unlawful.

Since the ban came into effect, more than 2,000 protesters have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action, and over 200 have been charged with terrorism offences.