Lawyers for Huda Ammori accuse the home secretary of running a cynical media campaign that breaches duty to the court in proceedings challenging Palestine Action's proscription. Ammori has permission for a judicial review of the decision to ban the group under the Terrorism Act. Birnberg Peirce contend public statements suggested proscription was based on violence and injuries, while open disclosure shows the recommendation concerned serious damage to property. Central advice recommended proscription to advance a deterrent message that serious property damage to advance a cause amounts to terrorism. Some evidence was heard in closed court; public claims should appear in the open case.
At the centre of your client's media campaign is an attempt to persuade the public that Palestine Action was proscribed for reasons which she is unable to reveal publicly and which are centred on violence and injuries against people. These claims about the reason for Proscription Review Group's recommendation for the proscription of Palestine Action are misleading in light of open (public) disclosure.
It also highlights an opinion piece by Cooper in the Observer in which she referred to disturbing information given to me that covered ideas and planning for future attacks [by Palestine Action]. It says this has not been raised in open court nor have allegations made by Cooper, and also reportedly by Keir Starmer to Labour's national executive committee
Collection
[
|
...
]