"Under Home Office policy, organisations can be banned, or proscribed, only if this is proportionate. Such decisions have to take account of five factors, including the nature and scale of the organisation's activities and the specific threat they pose. The nature and scale of Palestine Action's activities, so far as they comprise acts of terrorism, has not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are the consequence of proscription."
"Ammori's lawyers successfully argued that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action violated freedom of expression, freedom of assembly set out in the European convention on human rights. We do not accept the claimant's submission that fairness required the home secretary to give Palestine Action notice that she was minded to exercise her power to proscribe, to provide such reasons as she could, and to permit Palestine Action to have the opportunity to make representations"
Home Office policy permits proscription only where proportionate and requires consideration of five factors, including the nature, scale and specific threat posed by an organisation. Palestine Action's activities, insofar as they comprise acts of terrorism, were found not to have reached the level, scale and persistence necessary to justify the criminal-law consequences and the significant interference with Convention rights. Legal challenge established that proscription engaged freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ruled that fairness did not require prior notice or consultation, citing practical difficulties and security concerns, and dismissed arguments about the group's aim of preventing genocide as unsubstantial.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]