As protesters in London prepare to participate in the International Day for Palestine today, November 29, serious concerns have been raised after the judge who was expected to hear the legal challenge to the proscription of Palestine Action was removed from the case at the last minute without explanation.

Mr Justice Chamberlain is the judge who had headed the hearing to apply for a judicial review and had granted permission for it. He was due to preside over the juridical review, which began on November 26. But a panel of three different judges will instead hear the case.

This replacement at the last minute is almost unprecedented, and reports point out that it also happened to Justice Chamberlain earlier this year in the legal challenge to the sale of F-35 aircraft parts to Israel, which he had also granted permission for. The three judges who will now hear the case are Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Steyn and Mr Justice Swift.

When Chamberlain had been replaced earlier by Justice Steyn and Justice Males, they found that Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel was lawful, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza.

Tayab Ali, a partner at the law firm Bindmans, said: "A sudden and unexplained shift from the single judge who already had conduct of the case to an entirely new panel of three is deeply concerning, particularly without any stated justification. In a matter as sensitive as this, involving allegations linked to Palestine and public-interest activism of significant constitutional importance, the integrity and transparency of the judicial process must be beyond question. At the very least, the court should provide a clear and credible explanation for such a change."

A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, which has organised demonstrations against the proscription of Palestine Action, said: "If Dame Sharp believed a panel of judges was necessary, the usual process would have been to add judges to sit alongside him, not to remove Chamberlain entirely - especially as he is one of the most senior judges on the high court bench, so this cannot be explained on grounds of seniority. In a case of such national significance - determining whether 2,350 peaceful protesters will continue to be criminalised as 'terrorists' for holding cardboard signs the public deserves transparency, not backroom manoeuvres to cherry-pick judges, threatening the fundamental principle of judicial independence."

Emily Apple, the media co-ordinator for Campaign Against the Arms Trade, called Chamberlain's removal from the Palestine Action case "deeply alarming" and urged the court to explain the reasoning behind it. "This raises serious questions around the lack of impartiality and transparency in our judicial system, and whether this is now a pattern in significant legal cases concerning Palestine," she said.

At the opening of the judicial review on November 26, a protest action took place as around 200 people sat in front of the gates of the court holding placards which read: "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action". To add insult to injury, a significant number were arrested and carried away by police officers.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of the start of the judicial review, Amnesty International UK's law and human rights director, Tom Southerden, said that direct action protest is "under major threat" if the proscription of Palestine Action is ruled to be a proportionate use of terrorism powers.

Raza Husain KC, for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori, told the court that the decision was an "ill-considered, discriminatory, due process-lacking, authoritarian abuse of statutory power ... that is alien to the basic tradition of common law and the European Convention on Human Rights".

(News reports)

Link to Full Issue of Workers' Weekly

RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Weekly Online Archive