To my great surprise, the video recording of yesterday’s Court of Session hearing on the judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action is still active on the court’s website, and you can watch it. I do not know how long this will last.
I have been used to the ludicrous restrictions on the English court hearings, where passwords were needed to access the video and it disappeared instantly after the livestream, despite these being public courts.
This in Edinburgh was a preliminary hearing on permission for a judicial review and the judge wished to consider only two questions:
Firstly, whether I had standing to bring the case.
Secondly, whether the Scottish court had jurisdiction in the light of the English judicial review.
I should be genuinely grateful for people’s opinions after watching the video, but my initial thoughts are these:
Firstly and most importantly, my legal team’s Note of Argument had asserted that they assumed that, as the judge only wished to have two points discussed, he was already satisfied on the most important point that this was a well-founded petition for judicial review with a genuine prospect of success.
The judge did not contradict this and the respondent (the UK government) did not contest this.
This is absolutely crucial. I am sure that the judicial review will proceed if the two points of standing and jurisdiction go our way.
Still more crucial, the UK government appeared almost to concede on standing, in the light of an affidavit from Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, to the effect that I was involved in Palestine Action almost from the start.
The judge told my KC, Joanna Cherry, that she did not need to address him on standing. This appears to a certainty to mean he does accept my standing.
On jurisdiction, the UK government did not claim that the Scottish courts do not have jurisdiction. They also did not claim that the Scottish courts may not hear a matter being heard concurrently in England.
They instead fell back on two arguments. The first was the timing, convenience and cost (sic) of a Scottish judicial review. The judge appeared to give this short shrift.
The second argument – and it was the UK government’s main point – was “comity”. This was defined as “good neighbourliness between jurisdictions”, “politeness”, “courtesy” and even as mutual respect between labourers in neighbouring vineyards (honestly). The need to avoid “contradictory judgments” within the UK was advanced. All these were quotes from English judgments.
Joanna Cherry KC punctured this with one phrase: “that rather assumes the English court will get it right”.
She also directly quoted in full my own assertion from my own affidavit:
22. I am a Scot. I live in Scotland. Scotland is where I wish to publish my views in support of Palestine Action. Scotland is where my established Article X and XI human rights are being infringed.
23. I wish to seek the protection of the courts in my own jurisdiction against executive infringement of my rights within this jurisdiction.
24. As I understand it, the Scottish courts are not subservient or junior to the courts of England and Wales. Their opinion is equally valid and – crucially – the courts of Scotland have the absolute right to take a different view, even in a very similar or identical matter, to the court of England and Wales.
25. 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 absurd pretence of “terrorism”.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/25520722000941647
There was a wonderful turnout of support on a cold, wet Monday morning at 9am. The court was packed. The judge promised to give a decision this week if possible, or very shortly thereafter.
As I said outside the courtroom, this was not about my standing or rights; it was about the abuse of the human rights to free speech and free assembly of everybody in Scotland. It was about those scores of decent people in Scotland being ludicrously treated as terrorists. It was about the lives of the hunger strikers. Above all it was about the right to act to stop genocide, and about the 100,000 or more Palestinians massacred by Israel.
The rigged judicial panel on the parallel case in England has still not delivered its ruling in their judicial review.
The jury is out on the Filton Six trial in Woolwich Crown Court, which includes the incident where a policewoman was unfortunately injured.
I have no doubt that what is happening is this: the Court of Appeal is awaiting that verdict and a massive media blitz of “Palestine Action Terrorists attacked policewoman with sledgehammer”.
After that it will quickly be announced that the proscription of Palestine Action has been upheld.
On the Filton trial, I do urge you to read the astounding defence speech of Rajiv Menon KC on behalf of Charlotte Head.
Here is a little bit of it:
So that’s what His Lordship said to you, and Ms Heer in her closing speech, on much the same theme, told you that the defendants who had given evidence had not raised any real challenge to the charge of criminal damage. I’m sorry, but it is not right to say that the defendants who gave evidence did not raise any challenge. They did raise a challenge. They maintained that they had a lawful excuse. That was their challenge. But what’s happened is that His Lordship has withdrawn that defence as a matter of law, and that’s the true position that we find ourselves in. Their challenge was lawful excuse and the court has withdrawn that as a lawful defence. So where does that leave you, the members of the jury?
You could be forgiven for thinking that His Lordship is in fact directing you, as a matter of law, to convict Charlotte, who I’ll focus on for now, of criminal damage. But you’d be wrong to think that. His Lordship is not directing you to convict. In fact, not only is he not directing you to convict, but he’s also absolutely forbidden from doing so as a matter of law. The law is crystal clear on this point. No judge in any criminal case is allowed to direct a jury to convict any defendant of any criminal charge, whatever the evidence might be. That is the law.
Please remember that fundamental principle at all times when you retire. Please don’t misinterpret anything in His Lordship’s directions or summing up (which will follow the defence speeches) as amounting to a legal direction to convict. That would be a terrible mistake to make. I repeat, His Lordship is absolutely not directing you to convict, because he’s barred as a matter of law from doing so.
The jury has every right to be confused about this because it is confusing. You have every right to think that the distinction between withdrawing the only available defence to a criminal charge on the facts, and a direction to convict, is at best a distinction without a difference. You have every right to think that the two effectively amount to the same thing. But the fact of the matter is they are absolutely not the same thing. They are fundamentally different. Let me try and explain it.
If you look at the legal directions and the first section, headed Functions Of Judge And Jury, you’ll see it’s quite lengthy. I’m not going to go through it point by point, but I’d ask you to read it carefully when you retire. All the directions in this document are important, but I’d suggest that the directions on the function of judge and jury are particularly important in this case. The key point to summarise is that the facts, and the verdicts you return having considered the facts, are solely for you.
So nobody, not even His Lordship, can direct you as to what factual conclusions to reach. Nobody, not even His Lordship, can direct you to convict. It’s as simple as that. That’s the law. So, for the avoidance of any doubt about this, I am absolutely not asking you to disregard His Lordship’s legal directions. On the contrary, I’m asking you to follow them, in particular this section on functions of judge and jury, and remind you that nobody, not even His Lordship, can dictate to you what factual conclusions to reach in this case, nor direct you to convict the defendants of any of the charges they face.
This is the one of the greatest legal speeches – including historical speeches – I have ever read. Its strength lies in its brazen defiance of the judge and brilliant footwork along the edge of contempt of court.
It is precisely what lawyers need to be doing to resist galloping authoritarianism and the complicity in it of the judiciary. I shall return to the question of what was withheld from the Woolwich jury about Elbit, just as soon as the verdict is in and I may do so without imprisonment.
I am afraid to say I still have to ask for donations. If we get a judicial review of the proscription in Scotland we are going to need to put in a huge fundraising effort for the actual review. If we lose the decision, I am liable to have the UK government’s costs awarded against me. Either way, this is about to get very expensive – which is of course precisely what the authorities rely on to crush opposition.
If we can spread the burden across enough small contributions, we can do it.
I am extremely grateful to approximately 670 people who have already contributed. Every penny helps, but please do not cause yourself hardship.
You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/
Alternatively by bank transfer:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Or crypto:
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
I have donated to the legal defense fund. Thank you, Craig.
Good work. Regarding the 100,000 dead in Palestine, there was a study by the university of Tel Aviv several months ago putting it at 300,000 and this study has it at 377,000 (missing/dead) – which is 17% of the pre-genocide population. The empire really needs to fall soon.
I was lucky enough to be in the public gallery for Menon’s speech and can report that it felt like a big, big moment to all present. Hopefully a turning point. It took a lot of guts but he only went and did it. A truly great man.
Free the Filton 24!
I’ve never seen a barrister get so close before to saying the truth that he isn’t allowed to utter, namely that a jury has an absolute right to acquit regardless of anything the judge says and regardless of whether the evidence has made them sure that the defendant broke the law.
I believe that logic itself dictates that what you say is correct. If the judge can direct a jury towards a particular verdict, what’s the point of having a jury?
A jury doesn’t have to do what a judge tells them, Luis.
Exactly. Did you read me as saying the opposite?
If so, closer reading required.
Thanks for your reply Luis. The point I was trying to make is that the judge can direct a jury towards a verdict, but the point of the jury is that it doesn’t necessarily have to follow his or her directions.
I know the point you’re trying to make, Relapsed Agnostic, but what I don’t know is why you keep making it because it corresponds to my own view.
There is no symmetry.
A judge may direct a not guilty verdict. He may not direct a guilty one.
A jury doesn’t have the right to convict regardless of being sure a defendant is innocent. It does have the right to acquit regardless of being sure of a defendant’s guilt.
If the jury does the right thing in the Filton trial, this will be good not just because it frees the defendants but also because it may remind people of a jury’s nullification right.
And indeed, today many of the most powerful in the land wish to do away with juries. So slow, inconvenient, expensive… and independent. Proles should shut up and do what they are told.
Not a very British attitude.
On the contrary, Tom, I’d say that’s very much a British attitude! It’s certainly not just an attitude, but a fundamental belief held by the British Establishment.
About 30 years ago, I was serving as a jury member on a case that should never have been brought to court. A man was standing in a busy shopping precinct, offering a tray of cassette tapes for sale. A Council employee approached him, selected a tape, and purchased it after asking him to verify that the tape was genuine and not pirated. After the man gave an assurance that the tape was genuine, the Council employee then wandered over to a copper who was witnessing all this, who arrested the man and confiscated his tray of tapes. All this pantomime was described in great detail in Court by the Council employee and the copper under questioning by a fully robed and wigged barrister holding up a pirated tape selected from the wooden tray. M’learned friend for the defence then spoke, and the judge summed up, all this taking most of the afternoon, after which we adjourned to the jury room. The general feeling amongst the jury members was utter disbelief that we should be a part of this charade, and although the man was guilty, two of us argued that, nevertheless, we could and should deliver a not guilty verdict, if only to show the court what we thought of this nonsense. Unfortunately, our fellow jurors argued that we weren’t allowed to do this, and the man was found guilty on a 10-2 majority. It transpired that the cassette seller had 3 previous convictions for similar offences and was paying £30/week to clear previous fines, and then was hit with another £200 fine to add to his debt, even though he was the sole carer of an invalid mother and therefore couldn’t work full-time.
“Conscience doth make cowards of us all”
What was the charge?
Started watching the video but couldn’t carry on. Can’t blame the judge for seemingly being impatient. My humble advice for lawyers …. get to the point and cut the “your lordship” condescending talk.
“Your lordship” is just a convention, isn’t it? Like calling ambassadors “Excellency” or ministers in a meeting of the cabinet using “Minister for…” instead of Christian names?
I don’t think there’s anything especially condescending about it.
I actually find that the accusation that the lawyers (on both sides) were not getting to the point is rather condescending. If only everything could be a simple black and white matter which could be explained in a couple of sentences….sigh!
PS – who is that grim looking character sitting beside the lady in the yellow anorak? Mr Murray is not a great smiler but managed one a couple of times. But then, Mr Murray is a warm human being and not a dessicated professional protester.
That’s the UK government’s lawyer at the start. Delay and obfuscation was his precise purpose. You don’t seem to have understood the dynamics of this very well.
Mr Murray
I think you may be tired, so I’ll point to the chap again. It is certainly not the government’s lawyer and almost certainly no lawyer at all.
I’m looking at the video of the court proceedings. He is sitting in the 3rd row (ie the row behind you) and to your right. He has grey hair and beard/moustache stubble, wears a long sleeved pullover and one of those sleeveless thin anorak things. To his right i a woman wearing a yellow anorak and yellow scarf.
By the way, I understand the dynamics very well, no need to be condescending.
Sorry I was replying to Peter Mo not to you!
OK, Mr Murray, you’re forgiven! 🙂
To your right when I look at the images on the screen, to your left if you were writing this.
blue scarf (not yellow)
Roger Waters (with a haircut)?
I have donated and was considering doing so again iPlease don’t support the use of crypto- it is a criminal enterprise and designed to further undermine society and governance.
Are you trying to intimidate those who might wish to consider donating to Mr Murray’s fund?
I withdraw the above thought if you can show readers where it is stated, or has been found so in a criminal court, that crypto-currencies or their use are – IN GENERAL – a criminal enterprise.
@ALiB – Cryptocurrency is a Ponzi scheme, but what do you think of the straight banking world? Fine upholders of society?
Donors of money to good causes should get it to them whichever way works best in the circumstances.
Cryptocurrencies have always seemed to me intrinsically false because they’re not backed by any assets, but a real Ponzi fraud would also offer implausibly high returns on investments, which legitimate cryptocurrencies, which are known for their volatility, do not, though I still think it is a bad idea to be involved with them.
You do know that cash is no longer backed by any assets either don’t you? In fact, if crypto was used as cash rather than an investment asset, it would be far more stable than cash because every time a government uses quantitative easing, it devalues everybody’s cash, crypto by it’s nature can only have a finite amount of tokens. Sadly the money people have ruined it the way they ruin everything, using it as a place to hide their ill gotten gains (speculators, just get a fking job already).
“You do know that cash is no longer backed by any assets either don’t you? ”
Well, no, it’s backed by the issuing government’s ability to raise taxes, unlike cryptocurrencies which are only backed by the willingness of people to buy them with other forms of money.
Not enthusiastic about the banking systems but at least there is Government oversight and some transparency.
Further contribution made to your fight against the Brit State’s galloping repression of freedom to oppose its complicity in the Zionist genocide, and those evil people who make the weapons by which it is accomplished.
On Ali Abunimah´s (ELECTRONIC INTIFADA) detention in Switzerland last year:
From yesterday:
“A court ruled that his detention by Zurich authorities to stop him speaking about the genocide in Gaza was illegal, unconstitutional and violated the European Convention on Human Rights.”
starts with his segment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlCC0IXRs54
I thoroughly enjoyed watching the proceedings, and look forward to your case going forward in Scotland. The arguments were well presented, but the only ones that seemed to recognize the gravity of the issue came from your side. I cannot see how, in a fair hearing, there could be any other finding than to go forward. Excellent representation!
Got to wonder whether there are any British public servants left – in the Foreign Office, the Treasury, legal departments, MI5, even “comms” – who wonder “how TF long can we go on acting as total clowns just to help a Nazi-type gang of killers running the Occupation in Palestine and their friends, who undeniably have complete contempt for us?” But money talks…
I watched the hearing as it happened. At the beginning I despaired as Leading Counsel for the Crown was required to set out his objections to the application. The smarmily charming advocate, with a slight smirk most of the time, delivered a wordy, obscure dance around the houses discussing the notion of “comity”in his plummy, after-dinner-in-Middle-Temple voice.
I have in my thirty year legal career, heard this type of legal oratory, usually an attempt to lose the issue at hand in some type of legal labyrinth, many times. Only for the purveyor of such legal clap-trap, to abandon it after wasting the court’s time and adding to the confusion of lay observers.
Luckily, the Judge appeared to be having none of it and, as politely as possible for these chums in the Inns, Lodgings and Robing rooms, moved on to Joanna Cherry KC. With refreshing speed, lucidity and disarming legal knowledge, she put the feeble Crown’s argument to the sword. Of course the Judge is going to reserve his judgment on what really should have been an obvious granting of permission for judicial review there and then. I suspect either to await for further orders from those whose class interests he protects or to Mr McCawber-like, “wait and see if something turns up”
I got reasonably good feelings during the hearing but I had to remind myself that the law isn’t fair and the form and function of the Law is to protect those in control. And I suspect that ultimately, that is the way it will turn out. I’ve made a small contribution to Mr Murray’s costs; I wish it could be more but in its fervour to fight the smallest signs of socialism, the government is stealing my pension and by its poor policies reducing what savings I have to a tiny sum.
Good luck Mr Murray. There is comfort in the existence of people like you, brave and able enough to at least fight back.
“Of course the Judge is going to reserve his judgment”
Is this when the judge inquires of the Home Office what verdict they want?
Or the judge waits for the CST to confirm a sum has been dolloped into a Jersey account for him.
He already knows the ultimate decision. There may be minor victories in the skirmishes but that just furthers the false impression that the system is fair and not loaded against the likes of Mr Murray.
@ Ingwe
As a linguist, I’m surprised to find you describe the barrister for the Crown’s voice as “plummy, after-dinner-in Middle-Temple”.
I wonder if others on here agree with that view.
I think you’re wrong. Plenty to criticise about the Crown’s case and no need to resort to ad hominems about these particular proceedings. You’ll have noticed that Mr Murray didn’t.
Mr da Silva,
If you think the Crown’s advocate didn’t sound plummy, that’s your opinion. I disagree and I’ve spent years listening to such voices and I don’t need to be a linguist to recognise the sound.
If you don’t believe the Crown’s advocate was trying to obfuscate, delay and confuse the two simple issues before the court by blathering on about comity, then, as they say in legal circles, with the greatest of respect, you’re naive.
The Crown’s counsel also stated that the petition had insufficient detail, something he suggested was “remedied” by the Petitioner’s (and others’) affidavits as if they had somehow only been filed that day. The Petition was clear and adequately pleaded in my opinion.
Ingwe, your analysis is essentially correct – in terms of the category of speech involved. But only a Scot, bathed in the currents of the various sounds that denote class in THIS country, would recognise the tones – not of the Inner Temple – but those of the Edinburgh privately-educated anglicised class of quisling collaborator who run England’s northern colony on its behalf.
Although, I grant there is a peculiar specimen of that, that denotes Edinburgh’s Parliament House – the home of the Edinburgh advocate. Mr Lindsay is a standard specimen of the latter species – albeit of a peculiarly smug mien. He will soon be a judge – depend upon it.
Ingwe
Firstly, drop the straw man bit. I was not talking about whether or not the guy was trying to obfuscate, delay and confuse. My point was on your point about accent. I’m surprised you didn’t accuse him of setting up a straw man, since you seem to know how to do that.
Secondly, he sounded well educated and Scottish to me. Perhaps our perceptions of pluminess differ, so let’s try a test : you’ve heard Mr Murray speak – would you say he sounds plummy? If so, more or less or equally plummy in comparison with the barrister?
Thirdly, please don’t plummily condescend: I’m probably older than you and I’ve probably lived in the UK for longer than you. So I’ve probably spent longer than you listening to all sorts of voices and accents. That underpins my idea that you are just doing an ad hominem.
Luis Cunha da Silva,
I’m really not interested in getting into an argument with you over accents. Mr Murray’s accent is irrelevant.
You know nothing about me so don’t presume anything about my age or how long I’ve been in the country.
We can disagree about accents. Life is too short to debate this nonsense further.
All the best.
@Luis – The crown counsel Mark Lindsay doesn’t speak with a plummy English accent. If that’s what you mean, you are absolutely right. He speaks with a posh Scottish one.
Mark Lindsay acting for the Expensive Hat came across as a faffing about dickhead. I hope he continues in this case.
His set’s website looks cheapo and out of the box. Are they a bunch of misers or something? Its blurb sounds as though it was written by Dan Brown – apparently they’re “proven experts in public and commercial law”. If they go any further, they’ll call themselves “renowned”. The set’s logo, meanwhile, forms three quarters of a masonic square and compasses and probably seems sophisticated to these saddo emotionally stunted tossers. There’s something freakish about the facial expressions of Lord Elie, Lord Davidson, and a number of the other barristers too. Glad I haven’t met James Mure in a dark alley. Is that a barchetta pocket on his suit? Gotta admit, I quite like his peaked lapels.
Goodness knows what you’ve got against ad hominems, @Luis.
Against ad hominens, Brian, when they are silly and irrelevant.
People should focus on the substance and not waste their time raving abut somone’s accent.
@Luis – Sure, ad hominems can often be silly and irrelevant and help to blunt criticism that actually leads somewhere. Some engage in lampooning mostly to pleasure themselves. Others passively consume the work of comedians who do it. So I take your point.
But Ingwe mentioned Lindsay’s accent once in five paragraphs.
As for the need to “focus on the substance”, well nobody can disagree with you about that, but there is also the point that assuming one is having a debate with the enemy strengthens the enemy. This is what many of the moderated comments facilities on the internet encourage, and what many go-nowhere critics spend a lot of their waking lives doing. Take this far enough and you will end up saying things like you respectfully disagree with central bankers about the economy.
Have you read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”? He was wise on this.
I’ve got nothing against somebody watching a football match and imagining they’re the manager talking to the team at half-time. Everyone needs a bit of escapism sometimes. But if you wanted to smash football, thinking in that manner all the time wouldn’t be a way to go about it.
It’s wrong to bully someone because of their accent, dress sense, etc. But you gotta realise the role in Britain of poshly-spoken c***s, often not very bright (certainly about how people outside their own circles actually live) speaking down to people they despise. Sure there are oligarchs who don’t speak posh at all, but they’re not who I’m talking about. The idea exists among part of the ruling class that they and their type speak “properly” or “well” while the rest of us don’t, because we’re barbarian, heathen, filthy, etc., probably eating our food directly from our plates without the need for cutlery or even our hands.
See e.g. T Malthus, H G Wells, etc., for background.
It goes without saying that virtually all judges are already confirmed ruling-class establishment stooges. No chances will have been taken with the ones selected for Palestine Action cases. However the political pressure on them to deliver for Israel is becoming even more overwhelming. Today they will have seen the British political class throwing their own Chief Constable under a bus to try and valorize a bunch of the most extreme racist violent Israeli football thugs. A very clear marker laid down for any “rogue” public servants.
To oppose genecide is antisemetic, to insist that zionists must follow any laws is antisemetic. It is the zionists absolute right to do whatever they like, whenever they like, wherever they like. Once one understands that it all becomes clear. Zionism is a cancer and we are just cattle. Trump is the extreme case but Starmer, Cooper, et al are just as fatal for democracy and freedom. Excise the cancer !
Known as “pour encourager les autres”.
The British visa and immigration service is already operating in Reform UK land, but when it comes to foreign thugs of a certain stripe, hell-bent on beating British people up, for the British authorities it’s a case of we’re so sorry, we’ll chop whoever you tell us to chop, of course you should have whatever rights in Britain that you want, and of course we’ll make a large donation or sort you out with that contract. And curiously Reform UK don’t make this point.
If that’s a reference to the Manchester futbol furore, then I find it really interesting – and a testament to the vise-like grip of the Zionist lobby in the UK – how ministers, MPs, certain Jewish members of the press and sundry others are still obsessing about the chief constable’s decision 4 months after the event. One would have thought that the very busy Home Secretary had other more urgent and important matters to keep her occupied.
It is instructive and a known type of event sequence.
In other news, it’s inadvisable to disrespect the Hell’s Angels in public.
How refreshing to see court proceedings where the judge/legal teams are not wearing the ludicrous fancy-dress garb of horsehair wigs and gowns of various hues, wing collars etc. prevalent in English courts. Is this normal procedure in all Scottish courts?
In recent years their use has been reduced in Scotland’s civil courts.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/14/three-palestine-action-activists-end-uk-hunger-strike
The British regime has given an army training contract to Raytheon rather than Elbit.
Three comrades from Palestine Action have ended their hunger strike in response.
“Our prisoners’ hunger strike will be remembered as a landmark moment of pure defiance; an embarrassment for the British state.”
The British regime has given an army training contract to Raytheon rather than Elbit.
Three comrades from Palestine Action have ended their hunger strike in response.
https://thedefensepost.com/2025/11/24/israel-tamir-raytheon-rafael/
Well done Craig, lets hope they will come to a conclusive and fair decision…THIS WEEK
Not easy it seems to hire qualified lawyers for a shitty government salary.
The boy was stressed as hell. He fiddled with his hands, stumbled on his words, his facial expression wasn’t syncronised with words. Utterly unconvincing, he obviously failed to get his point across.
Your lawyer, Craig, was very convincing. I’m quite sure I can already say – congratulations!
I watched the scotcourts video, and as someone with no legal training or experience, the language and constructs and examples they give are mostly unintelligible. The first lawyer was very verbose and what they were saying was not really relatable to an ordinary person. The second one made more sense and I could understand the points she was making. It highlights the strange world or legal courtrooms. They have done a reasonable job of protecting the average UK person over the last few centuries so I hope they continue to do so this time. You are doing an amazing service to fight against a corrupted government. I contributed again to your fund.
Stephen C & Ingwe – Nice summations.
Now this case is more or less in relation to technical aspects of a much more important one.
It is outrageous that a judge can’t deliver a ruling immediately. If he hasn’t the expertise he shouldn’t be on the bench. Why the public and legal fraternity put up with this nonsense is unfathomable.
In court the judge should be asked for reasons if judgement is going to be delayed.
Overall my judgement… these proceedings like many are a circus. Lawyers and judges are overpaid and I can’t wait for AI to take over.
The Judicial Review, if it proceeds, will conclude that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was lawful, per Terrorism Act 2000. The decision to proscribe is one that is open to the Secretary of State only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism, as defined within the Act [Part 1], which includes inter alia: the use or threat is designed to influence the government, involves serious violence against a person.
This does not infringe on anybody’s right to protest about the “Palestine question” [sic], or even infringe on your right to publicly support PA [“murder” is also a criminal offence, but that fact doesn’t prevent people being murdered]
Your human rights aren’t being infringed by the actions of the State: you still have the right to commit criminal offences, and the State retains the right to prosecute.
The great strength is not the lawyers speech “in brazen defiance of the judge.” It’s strength depends entirely on the right to trial by jury in all cases between the individual and the government whether criminal or civil. In America the law is clear, the jury in has the right to “nullify” an “unjust law as no law.” This is the ultimate check and balance against government abuse of the rights of the people and illegitimate actions cloaked in law. Sadly the US Supreme Court (sic) has held that despite nullification being the law, one can not get an instruction by the judge to the jury that they have that power. Many jurors in America, in fact most Americans, due to the degenerate state of civics education since the feds took it over from the state, most Americans are unaware of this fact. As a result arguments such as that made above, though an admirable effort to defend the declining republic, fall mostly on deafened ears. All power to the jury! The conscience of the community is the necessary and proper final check and balance against government tendency towards perfidy.
Already 1 week past the promised ruling judgement. This is a simple decision to make unless you are trying desperately to justify the wrong decision.
Craig just Tweeted:
https://xcancel.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/2016102054909923496#m
I GOT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW IN SCOTLAND!!!!!!!
Of the legality in Scots law of the proscription of Palestine Action in Scotland.
Full judicial review 17 to 18 March at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
The judge Lord Young’s decision just landed.
Well done Craig.
Now to build on that success so its just not a minor one. Craig and his team can’t do it all.
From day one Jeremy Corbyn should have taken on the Israel lobby with court action.
After all if anti semitism is such a bad thing then falsely accusing someone of it is even worse. Instead poor old Jeremy comes out firstly with “anti semitism is abhorrent” instead of the abhorrence is the weaponizing anti semitism with unfounded claims.
Keir Starmer should be vigorously sued for having stated outside of Parliament that Israel has the right to deprive Gazans of food and basic essentials bringing fear to relatives in the UK.
The UK is doing a number of actions encouraging Israel’s killing spree across the Middle East. Condemning Iran for quelling violent protests is just one instance. There are criminal laws making it an offence to encourage violence viz. genocide overseas.
A coordinated response with the legal fraternity across the UK is required.
Lets hope Craig’s action gets things rolling.