Legal Battle Begins Against Palestine Action Ban
The co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, has launched a legal challenge against Home Secretary James Cleverly's decision to ban the direct action group under anti-terrorism legislation. The case, beginning Wednesday at the Royal Courts of Justice, will be partly heard under the controversial closed material procedure (CMP) - a secret courts system that prevents defendants from seeing evidence against them.
The 'Unavoidably Unfair' Secret Court System
During proceedings in courtroom five, Ammori and her legal team will be asked to leave while sensitive evidence is presented. When they return, the special advocate - a security-cleared barrister representing her interests in their absence - will be prohibited from revealing what allegations were made against her or Palestine Action.
This means Ammori will have no opportunity to rebut specific claims made against her personally, a situation that has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts who have worked within the system.
Angus McCullough KC, a special advocate with over 20 years of experience, stated: "CMPs are inherently and unavoidably unfair. The justification for them is that they are the 'least unfair' way of dealing with cases in which there is relevant material that genuinely cannot be disclosed to the party affected by it because of its sensitivity."
System in 'Meltdown' as Advocates Protest
The secret courts system faces unprecedented criticism from within its own ranks. Last year, McCullough revealed that a substantial majority of special advocates - 25 of an undisclosed total, including 16 KCs - were refusing new appointments due to systemic failures.
McCullough, who represented Shamima Begum in CMP proceedings, described the system as being "in meltdown" and cited "defects in the system" and failures in government support as reasons for the protest action.
The criticisms extend to the highest levels of judiciary. Lord Steyn, whose daughter is one of three judges hearing the Ammori case, previously declared that CMPs "completely lack the essential characteristics of a fair hearing" and involve "a phantom hearing only."
Expanded Powers and Ongoing Controversy
Closed material procedures were extended by statute in the Justice and Security Act 2013, moving beyond their original limitation to immigration and deportation hearings. The government argued this expansion would prevent intelligence from allies like the US being exposed in British courts and allow more intelligence-related cases to proceed.
However, an independent commission of legal experts, former ministers and an ex-MI6 director published a report this month calling for CMPs to be used 'only where strictly necessary'. The commission recommended judges should have greater discretion to balance disclosure risks against the unfairness caused by secrecy.
In the Palestine Action case, some material initially designated for closed proceedings has been moved to open sessions after the lady chief justice, Sue Carr, questioned the necessity of secrecy during an appeal hearing.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between national security concerns and fundamental principles of open justice, with critics arguing the system too often protects state interests over individual rights.
