I attach the full text of Lord Young’s decision granting the Scottish judicial review of the proscription of Palestine.

A few points. Judicial Review can only be granted where the judge believes it has a realistic chance of success. Lord Young evidently believes that we have a realistic chance of success on our three grounds – failure to consult, disproportionate limitation of freedom of assembly, disproportionate limitation of freedom of speech.

This was not even disputed at hearing.

On the disputed points – my standing and the jurisdiction of the court – we won on all points.

Lord Young’s ruling explicitly means that a Scot can always go to Scottish courts against an infringement of their human rights, no matter if identical action is being taken in England. It emphasises the independence and equality of the Scottish judicial system.

On consultation, there is one outstanding fact that I wish to bring to your attention. In England it is being argued – correctly – that while the Home Office consulted the Israeli Embassy, weapons manufacturers and communities including for some reason Lebanese Christians, they failed to consult any Palestinians, any pro-Palestinian organisation, any human rights organisation. They plainly and selectively consulted only those they thought would agree with them.

And to the point here they consulted with nobody – literally nobody – in Scotland. Not the Scottish Government. Not Police Scotland. Not the Scottish counter terrorist strategy board (CONTEST). Yvette Cooper just imposed the proscription on Scotland with no consultation at all.

COS-P1017-25 Pet: Craig Murray for J/R
Halliday Campbell WS Office of the Advocate General
26 January 2026 Lord Young

The Lord Ordinary, having considered the petition and answers thereto, and being satisfied that the test in Section 27B(2) of the Court of Session Act 1988 has been met, and for the reasons given in the note attached hereto, grants permission for the petition to proceed; assigns 23 February 2026 at 10am as the date for the procedural hearing; assigns 17 and 18 of March 2026 at 10am as the dates for the substantive hearing; both hearings within the Court of Session, Parliament Square, Edinburgh, and to be held before the Hon. Lord Young; further, makes the following case management orders:-

1. allows parties to adjust their pleadings until two weeks prior to the date of the procedural hearing; and to lodge final versions of their pleadings no later than one week prior to the procedural hearing;
2. appoints parties to mark up any relevant documents to indicate the parts they intend to rely on no later than one week prior to the procedural hearing;
3. appoints notes of argument to be lodged no later than one week prior to the procedural hearing;
4. appoints statements of issues to be lodged no later than one week prior to the procedural hearing;
5. appoints affidavits to be lodged in respect of those facts founded on by a party at the substantive hearing no later than one week prior to the procedural hearing;
6. appoints parties to write to the court to confirm whether they are ready to proceed to the substantive hearing no later than one week prior to the procedural hearing;
7. appoints parties to lodge a list and bundle of authorities, which should be marked up to indicate the parts the party intends to rely on no later than 10 days prior to the substantive hearing.

Andrew Young

Note –

1. By interlocutor of even date, and following an oral hearing, I granted permission for the petitioner to proceed with his petition for judicial review as required by section 27B of the Court of Session Act 1988. In this Note, I set out the reasons for my decision.
2. By interlocutor dated 11 December 2025, I asked to be addressed by parties in relation to two issues raised in the Answers lodged by the respondent, namely (i) whether the petitioner had a sufficient interest to give him standing to proceed with this petition, and (ii) whether it was appropriate or necessary for these proceedings to proceed given the existence of identical proceedings in England.
3. At the oral hearing, senior counsel for the respondent took a somewhat neutral position on the question of standing. He noted that the averments in the petition in relation to the petitioner’s standing were brief but acknowledged that affidavits had now been produced which provided more information as to the petitioner’s role as a supporter of Palestine Action. He accepted that the affidavits were truthful and that the petitioner did not have the “busybody” characteristic referred to in some of the legal authorities. After noting that standing is context specific, senior counsel was content to leave the matter for the court’s decision. I did not require to be addressed by senior counsel for the petitioner on this issue. I am satisfied that the petitioner’s role over recent years as an active supporter of Palestine Action and his strategic involvement in some of their protest actions, provides him with standing in relation to an organisation which does not have a conventional structure.
4. On behalf of the respondent, I was informed that the judicial review proceedings before the High Court in England had involved a hearing over three days in November and December 2025. One day of those proceedings had taken place under the closed material procedure. The judgment was still awaited. An appeal might reasonably be anticipated to the Court of Appeal, or potentially direct to the Supreme Court. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that the issues within the current petition are identical to those heard in the English court. There is no bespoke Scottish argument which merits separate proceedings in Scotland. Any proceedings in Scotland are likely to require closed material procedure for part of the hearing which will present practical difficulties. I was referred to R (Liberty) v Prime Minister & Anor [2020] 1 WLR 1193 at paras [26]-[31] in which the Court of Appeal discussed certain matters of policy where issues common throughout the UK are the subject of judicial review proceedings in more than one UK jurisdiction. Senior counsel for the respondent identified three potential ways forward. The first option was to refuse the petitioner permission to proceed. The second option was to reserve the issue of permission and sist the current cause until a decision was available in the English proceedings. The third option was to grant permission followed by an immediate sist until the decision in the English proceedings was available and had been digested.
5. Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevancy of the English proceedings was unfocussed in the respondent’s Answers. The existence of the English proceedings had not been advanced as the basis for any plea-in-law challenging this court’s jurisdiction. It was observed that any decision in England could not found a plea of res judicata in Scotland. A Scottish court would not be required by precedent to follow any decision of the High Court in England. There had been a number of recent examples of important constitutional challenges proceeding in parallel in Scotland and England. Those cases demonstrated that different decisions might be taken in the lower courts for ultimate adjudication in the Supreme Court. While the current petition did not include an argument peculiar to Scots law, it could not be ruled out that adjustment of the petition might introduce an issue which was not before the English courts. In relation to the decision in R (Liberty) v Prime Minister, this was a decision of the Court of Appeal on a case management issue. The Court of Appeal had not had the benefit of a full citation of the relevant authorities. The proscription of Palestine Action directly affected a number of individuals in Scotland who were facing criminal prosecutions. They had a right to have this restriction on their legal rights challenged before a court in Scotland. The court should grant permission. The respondent’s subsidiary motions for a sist should also be refused for the same reasons.
6. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant permission for this judicial review to proceed in Scotland notwithstanding the existence of English proceedings which are at a more advanced stage. As a matter of principle, a petitioner who has standing and whose petition sets out arguments of sufficient merit to satisfy s27B(2)(b) of the 1988 Act should not be refused permission because of the existence of parallel proceedings in another UK jurisdiction. The petitioner claims that his legal rights have been illegally circumscribed by the 2025 Order.
   He is entitled to look to the courts of his place of residence for a determination of that complaint. The cases of Cherry v Advocate General 2020 SC 37 and R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] EWHC 2381 support the petitioner’s argument that there is nothing inherently objectionable with proceedings on the same issue progressing through different jurisdictions within the UK at the same time. There is no suggestion that these proceedings are being advanced for an improper or abusive purpose such as a campaign to swamp the respondent with a multitude of proceedings. The possibility that any substantive hearing in this petition will require the adoption of closed material procedure is not a factor of any weight to the issue of permission. The necessary arrangements will be put in place if the closed material procedure is required.
7. I did not find the decision in R (Liberty) v The Prime Minister to be of any direct assistance to the issue before me. It involved discussion of a request for an expediated hearing in judicial review proceedings where similar proceedings had already been completed before the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session. The case was not concerned with the granting of permission to proceed under the relevant English rules. It involved a discussion of case management issues in a case already proceeding through the courts. Wider issues are involved, including judicial resources, when an issue of case management is under consideration.
8. For these reasons, I grant permission for the petition to proceed. For the avoidance of any doubt, my decision is not influenced by the suggestion tentatively floated by senior counsel for the petitioner that the petition might yet be developed to include a Scottish angle to the arguments.
9. I also refuse, in hoc statu, the respondent’s motion that these proceedings should be sisted. As observed above, case management may involve consideration of factors beyond those relevant at the permission stage. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to sist these proceedings immediately after granting permission. The better course of action is for parties to proceed through the usual stages of a procedural hearing towards a full substantive hearing which I shall provisionally fix for 2 days. This procedure will enable the final shape of these proceedings to be better understood. It is, of course, open to either party to seek a sist or some alternative procedure once there is clarity as to the position in England. Any such motion would be considered on its merits at that time.

Author: Lauren Bell Cunningham
This document has been electronically authenticated and requires no wet signature.

IN THE COURT OF SESSION
AFFIDAVIT OF HUDA AMMORI
IN THE PETITION
of
CRAIG MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh EH10
PETITIONER

For judicial review of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

At on the NINTH day of JANUARY 2026, in the presence by way of remote video conferencing software of Lynn Littlejohn McMahon, solicitor and notary public, Halliday Campbell WS, solicitors, Edinburgh, EH16,
COMPEARED HUDA AMMORI, who being solemnly sworn hereby DEPONES as follows:-

1. My name is Huda Ammori, I am a co-founder of Palestine Action.
2. Palestine Action was a network of individuals and groups which supported, and took, direct action against weapons companies which were involved in the destruction of Palestine and the ongoing massacres of the Palestinian people.
3. The group’s main focus was the Israeli weapons industry operating in Britain. Specifcally, Elbit Systems, which is Israel’s biggest weapons manufacturer.
4. Craig Murray and I had met in person when myself, Richard Barnard (also a co-founder of Palestine Action), and others, were housed together for The World Transformed festival in Liverpool. We were all there as speakers for various parts of the event.
5. During this time, we had exchanged contact details and I had asked Craig Murray if he would support us in increasing awareness of the various court cases that were taking place as part of Palestine Action. He was happy to help, and ever since, had become very involved in Palestine Action.
6. In May 2023, Craig Murray was also part of a mass protest action by Palestine Action against UAV Tactical Systems, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems. The protest was publicly called for by Palestine Action, for supporters of the network to attend and be a part of the action, all of which was under the Palestine Action banner.
7. The purpose of the mass action, was for people to hold a constant presence outside the factory to disrupt the production of Israeli drones. Not only was Craig Murray a part of this action, he had also reported on it for his blog: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/05/freedom-of-speech-elbit-and-fascist-policing/ (print-out annexed hereto)
8. In the summer of 2023, both myself, Richard Barnard and Craig Murray were speakers at ‘The Rebel Tent’, a part of the Beautiful Days festival. During this time, Craig Murray had also spoken to the crowd about Palestine Action’s aims and objectives.
9. As part of his solidarity work with Palestine Action, Craig Murray would also attend trial in support of those facing criminal charges for taking direct action. This included the plea hearing of Richard Barnard, who was facing charges relating to two speeches he had made in support of Palestine Action in October 2023.
10. Craig Murray had supported Richard Barnard, as he did with many people facing criminal charges for their involvement with Palestine Action. He was part of the protest at the Old Bailey for Richard Barnard, with myself. He had also raised awareness of the proceedings online, through his large platform, which also significantly helped mobilise support for the case.
11. It’s important to note that the slogan ‘We are all Palestine Action’ was popularised, as the network encompassed those taking direct action and joining protests, and those also supporting the court cases and spreading awareness of the aims of the group and the challenges we faced.
12. Not only was Craig Murray actively supporting Palestine Action online, sharing actions, and raising awareness of Palestine Action’s aims and strategy, he also had joined the mass action himself against Elbit Systems’ UAV Tactical Systems factory.
13. I also consider him a close friend and a confidant, who I would regularly speak to about the challenges myself and others personally faced due to state repression of Palestine Action. For the above reasons, I believe it is clear that Craig Murray was both involved and an active supporter of Palestine Action and is therefore extremely well placed to legally challenge the proscription of Palestine Action.

All of which is truth as the deponent shall answer to God.

Declared by way of video conference, and signed electronically
this NINTH day of January 2026 at Glasgow
before me, Lynn Littlejohn McMahon, Solicitor and Notary Public, via video conference
which I attended at Glasgow, G11
Lynn Littlejohn McMahon
Edinburgh
Solicitor and Notary Public

IN THE COURT OF SESSION
AFFIDAVIT OF CRAIG JOHN MURRAY
IN THE PETITION
of
CRAIG MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh EH10
PETITIONER

For judicial review of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

At Edinburgh on the NINTH day of JANUARY 2026, in the presence of David James Finlay Halliday, solicitor and notary public, Halliday Campbell WS, solicitors, Edinburgh, EH16 5PQ, COMPEARED CRAIG JOHN MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh, EH10 who being solemnly sworn hereby DEPONES as follows:-

1. I am Craig John Murray, born 17 October 1958, resident at Edinburgh EH10.
2. I am a journalist in alternative media, retired diplomat and British Ambassador, and a campaigning political activist.
3. I have a particular interest in Palestine, having campaigned on the issue since I first joined the Friends of Palestine in 1977, with a hiatus during my period in the FCO. I also have a particular long-term interest in freedom of speech issues.
4. I supported Palestine Action since its inception. I had frequently for decades expressed the view that Palestinians have been subject to ethnic cleansing and genocide for over seven decades. This did not start on October 7 2023. I therefore strongly supported the efforts of Palestine Action to disrupt the Israeli defence industry’s procurement and manufacturing infrastructure in this country.
5. I still support direct action against Israeli interests, in particular in view of the accelerated genocide of the last two years. I believe that the proscription of Palestine Action constrains my human right to freedom of expression, as a part of its general chilling effect upon journalism and upon individuals.
6. As my main income comes from subscriptions to my published blog, the curtailment of my ability there to write of redacted Palestine Action also affects my professional career and directly my income.
7. I do not support terrorism nor violence against individuals; neither does Palestine Action. The notion that constraining my human right to express my views is a necessary measure to combat terrorism is, in my view, absurd.
8. I was myself subject to detention under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act at Glasgow Airport on 19 October 2023, and questioned by police on my views and activism on Palestine. My mobile telephone and laptop computer were confiscated and I received a letter stating I am under continued investigation (which to my knowledge has not been closed).
9. The United Nations has queried with the British government the arbitrary nature of my de facto arrest in a letter dated 4 December 2024 which it sent to the British Government. A copy of the letter is produced as Annex 1 to this Affidavit.
10. On 10 and 11 May 2023 – over two years before proscription – I participated in a Palestine Action picket at the Elbit factory outside the city of Leicester. Elbit is Israel’s leading weapons manufacturer and responsible for many of the weapons that have been massacring tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
11. As is the case with the vast majority of Palestine Action events, this was an entirely peaceful protest. Over the two days I was there it consisted of nine people, on the pavement opposite the factory, causing no disruption whatsoever. Nonetheless the police attempted to disperse us, my first encounter with the gross abuse and denial of citizens’ rights in the UK in support of the Israeli defence industry.
12. I published immediately two articles on my website detailing my experience, stating that this was a specifically Palestine Action event and providing a link to Palestine Action’s website. My articles make clear that I was there as a supporter and activist, not merely as a journalist. Copies of the articles, titled “Freedom of Speech: Elbit and Fascist Policing” and “Now Protest Is a Moral Duty”, are produced as, respectively, Annex 2 and Annex 3 to this Affidavit.
13. Almost since its foundation I have had direct contact with Palestine Action’s founders, Richard Barnard and Huda Ammori. I have shared a flat with them when lobbying the Labour Party conference in Liverpool almost three years ago. I have advised them on legal representation. I have turned up to support Richard when he was charged with terrorism offences at the Old Bailey, and spent some hours strategising with them after that event.
14. I have attended the hearings at the High Court and Court of Appeal in London on the proscription of Palestine Action, reported on them, and discussed legal strategy for the plaintiff Huda Ammori with both Huda Ammori and, with Huda’s consent, directly with Gareth Peirce, Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC.
15. Palestine Action did not have a membership structure. I was therefore not a member before its dissolution. I was however an active collaborator.
16. I was in the public gallery at the International Court of Justice in the Hague for the hearings in South Africa v Israel on Israel’s alleged breach of the Genocide Convention.
17. From October 2024 to February 2025 (with a short festive season break) I was resident in Lebanon reporting from the ground on Israeli attacks on Beirut, the Bekaa Valley and Southern Lebanon.
18. I am concerned at the extreme and disproportionate effect of the proscription of Palestine Action not just as a supporter of Palestine, but also as a supporter of free speech. I have written frequently on freedom of speech and assembly issues.
19. Notably I have published articles on individual attacks on free speech, such as the prosecution of Mark Hirst. On March 21 2024 I published an article attacking Scotland’s new hate speech legislation on freedom of speech grounds. I take the unfashionable view of defending the free speech even of those with whose views I profoundly disagree – for example I published an article against the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly. A copy of these articles, titled “Scotland’s Hate Speech Act and Abuse of Process and “Lucy Connolly Should Be Released” are produced as, respectively, Annex 4 and Annex 5 to this Affidavit.
20. I would argue that anybody whose rights are constrained by the proscription of Palestine Action should have standing to challenge it. That an executive action which limits the rights of everybody equally cannot be challenged as it therefore does not limit the rights of anybody in particular, is an absurd contention.
21. But if particular status is needed I have it. I have participated in Palestine Action protests and have demonstrably supported them. I am a colleague and collaborator of Palestine Action’s founders. I am a journalist whose freedom of expression is being curtailed disproportionately. I have a demonstrable long-term particular interest in Palestine and in Article X and XI freedoms.
22. I am a Scot. I live in Scotland. Scotland is where I wish to publish my views redacted 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”.
26. Terrorism-related charges are life changing. They do not only bring potential imprisonment. They bring loss of employment, debanking and loss of access to money, and severe international travel restriction.
27. I have met entirely decent people in Scotland who have suffered all these consequences of the proscription. I have met an elderly female pensioner whose home was raided and searched by counter terrorism police in the early hours in front of her young grandchildren.
28. On 18 August 2025 I travelled to Dunoon for the court appearance of Bill Williamson, aged 73. Bill had been arrested in Dunoon High Street on 16 August 2025 at a regular weekly vigil for Palestine, for displaying a sign allegedly supporting Palestine Action. He was handcuffed in public and led away by four policemen. He was told he was arrested for a terrorism offence.
29. Bill, a man of impeccable character who is a stroke victim, was kept in the police cells all weekend, for two nights, with no food given to him suitable to his diet. He was produced at Dunoon Sherrif Court on Monday afternoon but released without – so far – any charge. This kind of disgusting treatment of a respectable elderly Scottish citizen exercising the right of peaceful protest and assembly in a small town like Dunoon is precisely the kind of disproportionate nonsense I want a judicial review to stop. A copy of the article published on the website of the Dunoon Observer and Argyllshire Standard on 21 August 2025, titled “Dunoon’s pro-Palestine protestor ‘liberated’” is produced as Annex 6 to this Affidavit.
30. It is not only those accused of supporting Palestine Action who have suffered dreadful abuse of their rights in Scotland since the proscription. Prior to the proscription, nobody taking direct action against the Israeli arms supply chain in Scotland had been charged with terrorism-related offences.
31. On 17 July 2025 three women were arrested in a direct action at Leonardo weapons factory in Edinburgh which allegedly slightly damaged a security fence. The action is not alleged to relate to Palestine Action.
32. Nevertheless the women were treated as terrorism offenders and their treatment by police was appalling. They were transferred to Govan Police Station where they were held in the special terrorism unit without charge for five days. They were held incommunicado in this time.
33. At the request of the support group for the women and of the women’s families, with which I had direct contact, I arranged for the best available legal representation for the women. However the police refused to pass on the details of the arranged legal representatives to the women.
34. They also refused to allow their families to contact the women. I had given details of the arranged legal representatives to the families but the police also refused to allow the families to communicate this to the women. They therefore arrived in court for charging unaware that alternative legal representation had been arranged for them to the standard duty solicitors with which they had been provided.
35. I understand that this keeping of the women incommunicado and therefore not allowing them information on choice of legal representation was entirely because of the different way alleged “terrorists” are treated.
36. The women were informed by police they were being charged under the Terrorism Act, but at the court itself they learned that this had been replaced by charges “aggravated” by terrorism.
37. The Scottish Counter Terrorism Strategy Board (CONTEST) includes the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, security services, COSLA and others (I believe including the Crown Office). The CONTEST minutes for May 2025, released under the Freedom of Information Act, include the following:

“Palestine Action Group (PAG)

Palestine Action are extremely active in Scotland, particularly within the protest activity space. This is a co-ordinated group, which is known for escalating violence in other parts of the UK.

Currently within Scotland, this group has been focused on protest activity which has not been close to meeting the statutory definition of terrorism; CT policing continues to monitor their activity and are prepared to intervene where necessary”

A copy of the extract of the minutes is produced as Annex 7 to this Affidavit.

38. Five UN Special Rapporteurs have submitted to the English judicial review that UK counter-terrorism legislation fails to meet international standards in conflating property damage not endangering life with terrorism. A copy of a press release titled “UN experts urge United Kingdom not to misuse terrorism laws against protest group Palestine Action” issued by The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 1 July 2025 is produced as Annex 8 to this Affidavit.
39. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights himself, Mr Volker Turk, has urged the UK government to rescind the proscription, stating:

“I urge the UK Government to rescind its decision to proscribe Palestine Action and to halt investigations and further proceedings against protesters who have been arrested on the basis of this proscription. I also call on the UK Government to review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards.”

A copy of a press release titled “UK: Palestine Action ban ‘disturbing’ misuse of UK counter-terrorism legislation, Türk warns” issued by The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on 1 July 2025 is produced as Annex 9 to this Affidavit.

40. In the Scottish legal tradition sovereignty rests with the people, not with the Crown in parliament.
41. In the English legal and constitutional tradition, parliament may do anything, be it ever so authoritarian. Parliament could legislate to repeal the Human Rights Act or cancel elections, and English courts would likely uphold that if properly passed through parliament and approved by the Crown.
42. I believe that the Scottish tradition of legal thought and practice should and does provide greater protection for the people from arbitrary and oppressive government, as expressed in the still in force Claim of Right. That is why I believe it is important for a Scottish court to hear this judicial review in Scotland for the protection of the people of Scotland from what I see as an arbitrary, oppressive, politically motivated and intellectually absurd executive action.
43. This affidavit addresses the issues of standing for the hearing on 12 January, not the whole matter for judicial review.

All of which is truth as the deponent shall answer to God.

Signed this ninth day of January 2026 at Edinburgh
before me, David James Finlay Halliday, Solicitor and Notary Public
Edinburgh

IN THE COURT OF SESSION
AFFIDAVIT OF DR ELIZABETH JANE ELDRIDGE
IN THE PETITION
of
CRAIG MURRAY, residing at Edinburgh EH10
PETITIONER

For judicial review of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

At GLASGOW on the EIGHTH day of JANUARY 2026, in the presence of Lynn Littlejohn McMahon, solicitor and notary public, Halliday Campbell WS, solicitors, Edinburgh, EH16 COMPEARED DR ELIZABETH JANE ELDRIDGE, Glasgow, G44 who being solemnly sworn hereby DEPONES as follows:–

My full name is Dr Elizabeth Jane Eldridge. I am also known as Lizzie Eldridge. My date of birth is 4 December 1967. My home address is Glasgow, G44.

1. I am a writer, a business English teacher and a former university lecturer. I obtained an MA(Hons) from the University of Glasgow in sociology and theatre in 1988,and then obtained a PHD from Lancaster University in 1993.
2. 1 am currently the Vice President of the Scottish branch of PEN International. PEN is an organisation that defends freedom of expression and campaigns on behalf of writers suffering censorship, oppression, imprisonment and even death. I lived in Malta for 12 years and came back to Scotland at the end of 2019. I got involved with Scottish PEN almost immediately upon my return, and I have been Vice President for one year now.
3. I’ve always been involved in Human Rights since I was in my teens. To my shame, Palestine largely disappeared from my line of vision for a while until the May 2022 assassination of the Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by the IDF. I was heavily involved with Scottish PEN by then. I alerted them and we arranged for a statement to be put out. When the genocide of the Palestinian people began in Oct 2023, I got involved in protests at that stage, and I have been doing everything that I can since then to help, including writing for the Palestine Chronicle and appearing on the Palestine International Broadcast.
4. I know of the Palestine Action group, but I am not directly involved with them. I do have connections with people formerly involved with Palestine Action, but I have never been involved in any direct action or anything like that myself.
5. I have a friend from Edinburgh who has been in prison since August 2024. She was allegedly one of the activists who took direct action at the Elbit Systems factory in Filton, Bristol. She is known now as one of the “Filton 24”. Arrested under the Terrorism Act (2000), she has been detained since then without trial, and has been deprived of basic prison rights and bail. Her period of detention, like that of her co-defendants, far exceeds the maximum 6 month period of detention, and the treatment of the Filton 24 (then Filton 18) has been strongly criticised by UN Human Rights experts [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/un-experts-intervene-filton-18-palestine-action-case] (Annex 1 hereto)
6. The Filton action was prior to the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group, but I feel this was part of the build up to proscription.
7. In the space of one year, since November 2024, I have been arrested three times. I had never been arrested or in any trouble with the law before that.
8. Since the genocide in Palestine began, the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee (“GGEC”) have been holding weekly protests outside 8arclays Bank in Glasgow. I participate in the protests weekly. On 2 November 2024, the protest had just ended, and we were all heading home,when suddenly people started shouting about someone being arrested. It was a young Palestinian woman who is a friend of mine. I asked the police what they were doing, and under what powers they were arresting my friend. There were three male police officers arresting her. I put my hand on her arm whilst I was talking. The police said that if l didn’t remove my hand they would arrest me. I said that she hasn’t done anything wrong. They arrested me for“obstruction” and put me and my friend in handcuffs in Argyll Street, put us in a van, and took us to Govan Police Station. I was held in a cell for 5hours. It was not a nice experience. I was given very restrictive bail conditions, which I eventually had to accept, rather than stay in the cell until Monday. One bail condition was that I wasn’t allowed in Glasgow City Centre at all. Three weeks later, I went to court and thankfully the Sheriff agreed that the bail condition was too restrictive and that was overturned.
9. I was back in court in January 2025 for a pre-hearing, and that’s when I discovered that a new charge of breach of the peace had been added to the obstruction charge. I represented myself, and I pled not guilty. The next time I appeared in court was in May 2025. The police gave evidence saying”all hell broke loose” but the video evidence showed very clearly that we were not causing any problems at all. The Sheriff said that senior police “gave unreliable evidence” which I understand to be as close as a Sheriff can get to saying that they lied. The Sheriff also allowed evidence from the bank manager of Barclays, who said that he didn’t see me cause any disturbance. I was acquitted of Breach of the Peace, but I had to return to court in August with letters of support re the obstruction charge. The Sheriff was satisfied that I was of good character, and gave me an absolute discharge. It was a huge relief.
10. In between all that, in April 2025, I took part in a protest at Aberdeen Bowling Club, against an Israeli player taking part in an International Bowling Competition. Petitions had been signed trying to prevent him taking part, but he did anyway. In the end, I ran onto the green with a Palestine flag my friend had hidden when we went in as spectators. I made my objections clear by shouting, and I was arrested and put in a van. The police never did take me to a police station though, they just let me out the van. I call this my “invisible arrest”.
11. My third arrest was on 6 September 2025. I was attending a protest in front of Queen Elizabeth House on Sibbald Walk in Edinburgh. It was a protest organised jointly by Defend our Juries, and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Some people had placards saying, ”I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action. I didn’t have a placard. I was standing at the back, wearing a t-shirt, which read “Genocide in Palestine, Time to Take Action”. The words “Palestine” and “Action” were both written in a larger font. According to the police citation, ’you LIZZIE ELDRIDGE did wear an item of clothing namely, t-shirt in such a way or in such Circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that you were a member or Supporter of a proscribed organisation as defined by the aforementioned Act namely, Palestine Action, in that you did wear said t-shirt; CONTRARY to the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 1 3 (1) (a) as amended’
12. I was not arrested there and then, nobody was. I was actually thinking at the time, “what a shame for the placard guys, no doubt they will cop trouble for that”, as I knew Palestine Action has been proscribed as a terrorist group by then. However, nearly two weeks later, there was a knock at my door whilst I was teaching a student business English in an online session. It was two plain clothed police officers. They started talking about the protest in Edinburgh, and I said the timing “was inconvenient, could they come back in 10 minutes, after my lesson”, and they agreed. When I opened the door 10 minutes later, they were standing in precisely the same positions I had left them. They said they were there to arrest me under the Terrorism Act. Again, I said the timing was inconvenient, I had other lessons, and asked them to come back at 1pm. They agreed. It was all a bit farcical. as the police were very apologetic when they came back, and they were perfectly nice, and even asked me for directions to Cathcart Police Station, as they were from Edinburgh. I wasn’t handcuffed, I was only in the police station for an hour, and after taking my mugshot and fingerprints, they let me go, with no bail conditions. Which I found to be pretty surreat if they really thought me to be a terrorist.
13. In December, a counter terrorism police document was leaked, which gave advice to the police on how to deal with protestors post proscription of Palestine Action. The wording on my t-shirt was specifically referred to, and was said explicitly not to be an arrestable offence. https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-policing-guidance-suggests-protesters-wrongly arrested/j (Annex 2 hereto) However,I (together with a number of others in a similar situation) received letters from the police, claiming that they could take action against us, but they would offer to just give us a warning for potential terrorism instead. We all decided that there was no way we were agreeing to that. A warning stays on your record for 2 years and can be used against you. We met and symbolically burned our letters at a public protest in Edinburgh on 22 November 2025.
14. Then, on the Saturday before Christmas there, I received a police citation giving me a court hearing date of 21 January 2026.
15. On a personal and professional level, I would say that thèse experiences have led me to be shocked at the erosion of human rights and civil liberties in our country.

Truth as solemnly declared
before me, Lynn Littlejohn McMahon, Solicitor and Notary Public
Edinburgh, EH16

I am very optimistic now we have won this stage. But I am afraid the full judicial review is going to be very expensive. We need everyone who can contribute to contribute, even if it is only a pound, dollar or euro. And we need everyone who already contributed to think of another person who they can ask to contribute. All of us have to look towards people we know of good heart with means.

If we succeed, we will save many scores of people from the life-changing consequences of a terrorism sentence and from possible jail. But PLEASE do not contribute if you really cannot afford it – we are trying to make people’s lives better, not worse.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/

I know these are the most difficult of times. But that is why we have to keep fighting. The sums needed to mount a successful legal challenge to the power of the state can be eye-watering. But we are the many. Every penny helps, but please do not cause yourself hardship. You can contribute via the crowdfunder above or via these methods:

Alternatively by bank transfer:

Account name: MURRAY CJ
Account number: 32150962
Sort code: 60–40–05
IBAN: GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC: NWBKGB2L
Bank address: NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Or crypto:

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of subscription payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

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

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

Venezuela GoFundMe