A UK Government decision to ban Palestine Action has led to scores of people of “good character” being arrested on the “absurd pretence of terrorism”, a court has heard.
Advocate Joanna Cherry KC told judge Lord Young that a policy which led to the campaign group being proscribed was “appalling”.
The former SNP MP was addressing the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Monday in an action which has been brought by former British diplomat Craig Murray.
Mr Murray, a blogger, is seeking permission to have Scotland’s highest civil court judicially review a decision made by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood last year.
She decided to pass an order which placed Palestine Action to the list of Proscribed Organisations under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The legislation – designed to tackle terrorist groups which threaten UK public safety – makes it illegal to be a member of or support groups which have been banned – such as Palestine Action.
The organisation was banned after its activists undertook a number of direct actions against premises of UK arms manufacturers it says were involved in arming Israel. The group was also involved in vandalising air force planes at RAF Brize Norton.
Legal experts say the effect of Mahmood’s order was to make it an offence to belong to or support Palestine Action.
Mr Murray believes the Home Secretary’s order was unlawful and that she was unable to pass it. He wants the Court of Session to pass an order stating that the order was unlawful and to have it quashed.
On Monday, Ms Cherry urged Lord Young to allow the action to proceed as it was of “constitutional importance”.
She said Mahmood’s decision had breached the human rights of Scots who wanted to protest.
She said: “The disproportionate effect of the proscription of Palestine Action on individuals in Scotland has been appalling, scores of peaceful people of entirely good character, have been arrested on the absurd pretence of terrorism.
“In this case, there is an urgency to determine whether the proscription of Palestine action is unlawful, so that ordinary citizens who want to protest and express their support for the organisation of Palestine Action may know whether or not it isn’t awful for them to do so.
“There are also a large amount of people at present in Scotland facing very serious proceedings, and facing convictions as terrorists or supporters of terrorism.
“We are dealing with human rights and liberties, some of the most fundamental in our society.
“If people don’t have the right to express their views and to assemble to express their views, then they can’t really take part in civil society properly and adequately.”
Lawyers for Mr Murray, believe there are three grounds for the order to be quashed.
They claim that the 2025 Order was published in circumstances which were procedurally unfair.
They claim that the banning order was a draconian power which ought not to have been passed without Palestine Action supporters from being consulted.
Mr Murray also argues that the order interferes with Article 10 of his European Convention on Human Rights rights – the right to freedom of expression.
He also claims that the order breaches Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to freely associate with people with similar political views and the right to protest.
The British Government is contesting the action brought by Mr Murray.
The Government’s lawyer Mark Lindsay KC asked Lord Young to refuse permission to proceed.
He argued that Mr Murray does not have “standing” to bring the action – this means he is not directly affected by the 2025 Order as he says he isn’t a member of Palestine Action.
Mr Lindsay argued that Mr Murray is not prevented from exercising his views about Palestine and isn’t facing prosecution for expressing his position on the issue.
Mr Lindsay also argued that there was no need for a Scottish court to consider the action.
He said that an action was already being considered by an English court on the same issue and that this meant there wasn’t any need for a Scottish court to consider Mr Murray’s arguments in a judicial review.
He added: “It is inefficient to deploy court and judicial time dealing with the same issues.”
Speaking about case law on standing, Mr Lindsay added: “Some of the authorities on standing I think used the unhelpful expression of a busy body, which I think is unnecessarily confrontational.
“For the avoidance of doubt the respondent is not suggesting for one moment that Mr. Murray is a busy body.
“It is accepted that’s acting in good faith on a matter that he feels strongly about.”
Lord Young told the lawyers in the case that he wanted time to consider the issues in the case before deciding on whether to allow the action to proceed.
He said: “Clearly, this is a very anxious matter, so what I’m going to do is I’m going to reflect on parties submissions and I will issue my decision, hopefully, this week, and if not shortly after.”
Follow STV News on WhatsApp
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
