Even the Guardian thinks Yvette’s a liar

Lawyers for a co-founder of Palestine Action have accused the home secretary of running a “cynical media campaign” which breaches her duty to the court in proceedings challenging the group’s proscription.

In a letter sent to the government’s legal department on behalf of Huda Ammori, who has been granted permission for a judicial review of the decision to ban the group under the Terrorism Act, her lawyers say Yvette Cooper’s public statements are not backed by her disclosures at the high court.

Birnberg Peirce write:

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 is clear from the open disclosure that the basis for the recommendation was serious damage to property caused by Palestine Action and not violence against people.

Indeed the central advice to your client was that proscribing Palestine Action would advance ‘the deterrent message of stating clearly that serious damage to property to advance a cause, amounts to terrorism regardless of the cause’.

While some of the evidence at the judicial review permission hearing was in closed court, so neither Ammori nor the lawyers representing her in open court have seen it, the letter states that “anything that your client feels able to share with the media should be in your client’s open case, even by way of gist”.

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]”.

NB I gave my own paragraph by paragraph response to that opinion piece in my August 21st post, Yvette Cooper takes to The Observer.

Back to the Guardian …

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 (NEC), that Palestine Action targeted Jewish businesses. The letter says Cooper was “well aware” that the Jewish business in question was a landlord of a subsidiary of the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.

In my August 21 post I too raised this issue:

Since Palestine Action’s raison d’etre  is to make life hard for the war criminals in Palestine and their friends on this sceptred isle, it will of course target Israeli business interests on British soil – and since Israel is a racist ethno-state, these will be disproportionately Jewish. What Cooper seeks to imply – deliberately, recklessly, despicably, and wholly of a piece with her government’s efforts to paint attacks on Israel as antisemitic – is that Palestine Action targets such businesses because they are Jewish owned, as distinct from Israeli owned.

Back to the Guardian …

Additionally, [the Birnberg Peirce letter] cites a report in the Times which said Home Office officials had briefed it that Palestine Action “may be funded by Iran”. A Whitehall intelligence assessment released to the high court stated that it was “primarily funded by donations”, including via crowdfunding, and also received revenue through the “sale of merchandise”.

On August 21 I cited Craig Murray who, having seen a redacted Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre report – almost certainly the “Whitehall intelligence assessment” referred to here – said:

If Palestine Action deliberately attacked people …  had foreign funding …  attacked random Jewish businesses …  planned a big terrorist act … the JTAC report would say so. It says nothing of the sort.

Back to the Guardian …

The letter states:

This cynical media campaign reflects a fundamental lack of respect for court proceedings, and either indicates an attempt by your client to influence media coverage through assertions which she cannot evidence, or is reflective of a serious breach of her duty of candour in these proceedings …

The proper place for your client to advance her case is in court. Your client’s approach in relation to briefing the media with a wholly different basis for proscription is entirely improper and a breach of her duty to the court. If your client has evidence to support her assertions, this ought to have been disclosed. As she has not, she must cease her misleading campaign immediately.

Last month, Palestine Action became the first direct action group to be proscribed, placing it alongside the likes of Islamic State and National Action. This week, Amnesty International UK and Liberty were granted permission to intervene in the judicial review, which is expected to be heard in November.

The government has been approached for comment.

* * *