High Court ruling on Palestine Action welcomed by UEA expert
By: Communications
A protest law expert at the University of East Anglia has welcomed a High Court decision that says the ban on Palestine Action under terrorism legislation is unlawful.
Prof David Mead from UEA Law School said it was in keeping with the balancing approach that human rights law requires of all government decisions.
"The High Court has decided that there should be a clear line between terrorist groups and groups that engage in disruptive criminality as part of a political campaign to persuade others or bring some commercial activity to an end,” said Prof Mead, Professor of UK Human Rights Law and an expert in the law of public order and protest, and on the policing of it.
“This decision is very welcome and in keeping with the balancing approach that human rights law requires of all government decisions – even, or perhaps especially, regarding groups that we fundamentally disagree with.
“Groups that engage in relatively sporadic and targeted actions that cause or have potential to cause limited harm and damage will always be subject to the ordinary criminal law.
“However, if the decision had gone the other way, allowing the Home Secretary additional powers to ban - with all the consequent very significant limitations on free speech and reduced criminal justice protections - would risk the proscription power being available in future not just to anti-arms protesters but say those who oppose fossil fuel extraction or abortions.”
Prof Mead added: “There was evidence before the court of journalists, academics and other campaigning groups feeling ‘chilled’ - exercising restraint and therefore deciding not to act or to speak when it would in fact have been perfectly lawful to do so.
“In addition, while the Court was persuaded that the serious criminal consequences of proscription - such as exposing people to arrest for showing support - would not have any widespread or general impact on expressions of support for the general Palestinian cause, the nature and scale of the group’s activities had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are the consequence of proscription, and the very significant interference with Convention rights resulting from those measures.
“Importantly the Home Secretary cannot take a decision that restricts the rights to free speech of the group, its supporters or critically others who perhaps might get caught up in the ban unless that decision is proportionate.”
Prof Mead has previously written about the banning of Palestine Action for The Conversation.
Related Articles
Are pop stars breaking or revolutionising the English language?
With the launch of Harry Styles’ new album this week, a UEA grammar and language expert has given her thoughts on the debate around whether it’s title - ‘Kiss All the Time. Disco, Occasionally’ - is grammatically correct.
Read more
New research warns charities against ‘AI shortcut’ to empathy
A new report from the University of East Anglia (UEA) warns that the potential reputational damage of charities using AI-generated images in their campaigns is more complex than many organisations realise.
Read more
Children’s development set back years by Covid lockdowns, study reveals
The Covid pandemic disrupted children’s ability to self-regulate - according to new research from the University of East Anglia (UEA).
Read more