Palestine Action Supreme Court Hearing Day 2

Craig Murray’s account of the second day of a UK Supreme Court hearing over the proscription of Palestine Action focuses on the government’s case, presented by barrister James Eadie. The government argued that Palestine Action met the legal definition of terrorism, citing property damage, alleged weapons use, injuries at the Filton factory, the Brize Norton aircraft incident, and claims of escalating activity and a nationwide, secretive structure. It relied on assessments from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and counter-terrorism police, including material presented in closed proceedings that Huda Ammori and her lawyers could not see or challenge. Eadie also argued that the group’s manual, funding and tactics placed its actions outside legitimate civil disobedience, and that existing criminal law had not prevented attacks. He said the Home Secretary had followed expert advice and that national-security decisions warranted substantial judicial deference.

Murray sharply disputes the government’s presentation and the court’s treatment of it. He says juries had rejected weapons charges in the Filton case, and only one defendant was convicted of a violent offence, without intent; he argues the judges had this information but did not challenge Eadie’s account. He also questions the use of post-incident sentencing remarks to justify proscription, noting the sentences were imposed before the ban and could suggest ordinary criminal law was sufficient. Murray contrasts the judges’ apparent lack of scrutiny of the government’s lawyer with their questioning of Ammori’s lawyers, and portrays that imbalance as evidence of deference to executive power.