So as good as their word, after 18 people protested outside New Scotland Yard with placards reading 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action' they have all been arrested by the Metropolitan Police.
They will now of course find themselves in a sort of legal limbo as charges will be dropped (indeed rendered null & void) if the appeal by the Govt. fails to overturn the judgement that the proscription of Palestine Action was itself illegal.
h/t Guardian
@ChrisMayLA6 So false arrest.
Are there no pro-bono legal people who can support them?
No, while the appeal is still running the High Court explicitly said the proscription would stand... thus, if the law is rendered null, the charges will be too, but the arrests were legitimate (in a legal sense, not a moral one) under the law existing on the day. It will be an interesting issue of retrospective application of the law, but I imagine there will be a way round any accusations of false arrest - although it would be fun if this doesn't get into the final judgement
@ChrisMayLA6 That's not my understanding. Yes, the proscription reasons in place pending an appeal. But unless the High Court judgment is overturned in appeal, the ban is void ab initio, and all the arrests are illegal, including today's arrests.
Because in the case the Govt. was given the leave to appeal, and I imagine the Judge thought it would be less disruptive to have the law change & then be changed back if the Govt. win its appeal.
@ChrisMayLA6 I agree with Chris on this point. It's common for implementation to be delayed until the appeals process is complete, to avoid a cycle of actions swinging back and forth between legality and illegality.
@ChrisMayLA6 @2legged But it favours possibility over current certainty.
Logistics favouring the guilty in this instance.
@NicelyManifest A judgment under appeal is not certain. If it was certain, then there would be a huge problem.
@NicelyManifest This is not about a future challenge. The govt has already been given leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and whichever side loses there will try to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
If courts implement the latest decision without a stay, there is a risk that 2,700 cases get dismissed, reinstated, then dismissed again. That is not in anyone's interest.
The ideal interim solution would be a stay on trials and arrests, but I'm not sure of the legality of that.
Do you not think that if the Govt.'s appeal fails, part of that judgement will be a measure to ensure the police are not exposed to what would be a large number of cases of false arrest?
@ChrisMayLA6 I'm sure the government would love such a getout!
But I don't see any legal basis for a getout. If the prescription was void ab initio (as the High Court found), then police actions under its provisions were illegal.
I see no basis for finding that the ban was initially legal, but somehow became illegal. If it was illegal all along, it would be outrageous for courts to just say "tough luck" to arrestees. But the govt probably wants thst denial of rights.
Well, in that case (and I don't dispute you argument), there may be some difficult cases for th Police & the Home Office, as I imagine the Met will suddenly find they were required by the Home Office to make the arrests... leaving it open for a compensation scheme - perhaps?
@ChrisMayLA6 Yes, compensation claims are inevitable if the ban is finally overturned. And because of the severe consequences of the "terrorist" label, damages may be non-trivial.
There will be some big internal debates about the composition, but the givt would be very foolish to fight with the cops on this. Many of the cops were very unhappy about the arrests, but remsined loyal to govt. Dumping blame and costs on cops would do huge damage to that #MetPol—govt relationship.
@2legged @ChrisMayLA6 @NicelyManifest
I dont know all the legal niceties, but when IPP (imprisonment for public protection) was judged unlawful in 2012, those already sentenced since 2005 were still detained - on the basis that it wasnt unlawful until judged unlawful
There are still people detained on #ipp as far as I know (certainly were last year)
Its a disgraceful, situation and remains unresolved afaik
So, yes, I wouldnt be surprised to see some vindictive legal manoeuvring by govt
@OliverNoble I too dunno the legal niceties of that. But it raises an interesting set of unusual dilemmas.
Hhow do you re-sentence someone years after the event? The original trial judge may dead, and certainly won't be up to speed on that case. It's hard to even apply a crie formula, the sentence was basically "ai dinno, so leep it under ongoing review".
Emeritus Prof Christopher May
Neil Moffatt
Claire McNab
Oli