High Court rules Palestine Action ban unlawful in UK (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The UK government's ban on a Palestinian campaign group under terrorism legislation has been found unlawful in a dramatic ruling by the High Court in London. A judge said the ban on Palestine Action resulted in a very significant interference with the right to freedom of speech. Thousands of people have been arrested in recent months for holding signs with the group's name. The ban on Palestine Action remains in place, however, ahead of a further hearing and appeal by the government. And the Metropolitan Police has said in the last few minutes it will focus on gathering evidence of potential offences where support for Palestine Action is expressed rather than making arrests at the time. Our legal correspondent Dominic Casciani was in court and says this is a very significant ruling.

[00:00:48] Speaker 2: I mean this is a massive blow for the Home Office. It's quite an important decision. This is the first time a group which has been banned under terrorism legislation is actually taking a case to the High Court in this fashion and effectively weren't at this stage. Getting a ruling that the way the ban was put in place was unlawful. Now the question is of course what happens next. Now we know the Home Secretary is going to appeal. Shabana Mahmood has already said so. And she's underlined in her statement today that she welcomes the fact that the High Court has accepted that Palestine Action is effectively a criminal organisation which uses criminality in order to pursue its aim. Effectively breaking into arms firms which are associated with Israel and effectively smashing up its property saying they have the right to do so in order to stop what they call a genocide in Gaza. And critically also that the High Court said a small number of those incidents had crossed the bar into acts of terrorism. But the key thing in this case was that the High Court said on one level the scale of activity by Palestine Action was pretty limited in terms of the terrorism allegation side of this. And therefore what had happened prior to the ban had not reached effectively the intensity and scale needed to justify a ban of terrorism legislation. It simply wasn't proportionate to acting that way at the time. There were other criminal laws available such as criminal damage. But secondly, and I think this is the really interesting thing about this case, Ruggini, the court said that in effect by banning this group the Home Secretary had failed to take into account that it would have effectively an effect, a chilling effect on the rights of protest. Because you would have people who want to protest about issues concerning Palestinian people particularly in Gaza during the course of the war and they would effectively exercise self-restraint. It would have a chilling effect on them. My words not the court's I stress there. They would basically be potentially feel unwilling to come out and protest or find it harder to protest because of the association or potential association with this group.

[00:03:00] Speaker 1: Dominic Cacciani there. Well, let's speak now to Lord Wolney, former government adviser on political violence, who's a critic of Palestine Action's methods. Thank you very much, Lord Wolney, for joining us on the programme. Looking at what we heard from the High Court, they said that the prescription of Palestine Action was disproportionate. Do you accept that?

[00:03:21] Speaker 3: No, I don't. And I'm glad that the Home Secretary has immediately signalled that she will appeal this verdict because it is it is, of course, obviously true that that Palestine Action has used violence less frequently than than other prescribed groups, although there have been a number of deeply alarming violent incidents. But where I think the where I think this judgment has what this judgment has overlooked is that is that economic damage is squarely within the definition of terrorism in this country. It is not perhaps as well understood by the public. But it is it is grounds on which to to designate an organisation as as a terrorist organisation. And I I'm trying to digest and must admit, I find it rather perverse, the ruling, the judgment that relates to this idea that this will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, because I think for most people, it's really quite clear that you can you can say what you like in terms of a cause and you can you can stand up for Palestinian rights or whatever, but you're not entitled to break the law and commit criminal sabotage or violence on its behalf. I think most people understand that distinction.

[00:04:54] Speaker 1: Is the law not nuanced enough, then, in your opinion?

[00:04:57] Speaker 3: Well, I what I am, I am pressing the government to do now as a result of this, to accept an amendment that I've proposed to the police, the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through the House of Lords, which would I think have have been able to if this had been in place at the time, you could have avoided this five year long fiasco with Palestine Action. And that is to give the government the power to buy an organisation which is dedicated to criminal sabotage, as Palestine Action clearly is. And I think that thought that was a notable part of the ruling that they did not suggest that they were in some kind of noble tradition of civil disobedience. But you could ban the organisation for conducting those acts without going as far as labelling them as terrorists, which I think is what has caused much of the controversy, what has brought people out in support with these signs that ended up with them getting arrested. I think for most people, that would seem a perfectly reasonable balance that yes, some people, I don't take this view myself, but I understand why some people argue that they have not met the terrorist threshold. But I think a big majority of people in this country would think it's not OK for an organisation to willfully, openly, proudly be going about smashing stuff up in the name of whatever cause.

[00:06:36] Speaker 1: Yeah. And whatever the cause may be, whether it's Palestine Action's cause or many other causes, obviously people, the public will be aware that often there are demonstrations, actions where the vast majority of people are peaceful. But elements within that organisation, that demonstration are not being peaceful. So that's why I asked you that question about nuances within the law. I just want to get your reaction then to that Metropolitan Police statement saying it's going to focus on identifying offences and gathering evidence rather than making arrests. Do you understand that response? Is that pragmatic on the police's part, given their resources are stretched and given that the High Court hasn't reached yet, because there is an appeal, so it may change its mind, a settled position on this?

[00:07:28] Speaker 3: Well, I think I understand the police's response, but I think they need to be clearer. And I think they need to be absolutely clear that they will not stand back if Palestine Action or supporters or copycat groups go back to the kind of criminal sabotage campaign that has seen so many millions of pounds of damage being done and many thousands of workers being intimidated. What I think they mean is on this follow-up protest to them being prescribed, all of these people who frankly really should know better, who have performatively broken the law with signs to make their point. And they are stretched. And those people have been clogging up the criminal justice system and putting undue pressure on our courts, which frankly our courts cannot afford. I blame them for doing that. But I do understand the police's position in wanting to take a beat to understand where this where this goes now. Because if the ruling is upheld on appeal, then those people who have been holding up the signs saying, I support Palestine Action, will not be liable, unlike those who've been committing the criminal violence in the name of Palestine, which we have to be clear, no matter what the cause is, is not the way that we do things in this country. And to accept otherwise is effectively to be accepting that mob politics can rule in the name of whatever cause. And we are a better country than that.

[00:09:08] Speaker 1: Lord Wolney, thank you very much for joining us.

[00:09:11] Speaker 3: Thanks.