Judgment hand down for the Palestine Action appeal will be live-streamed from the Court of Appeal on 15 June at 11am.

Judgment tomorrow in the Palestine Action proscription appeal is only on the issue of reporting restrictions, the judgment for the appeal hearing will be handed down at a later date to be confirmed.

Thanks, will delete.

My recap of the second and final day of the OPEN aspect of the Palestine Action appeal hearing.

My recap of yesterday’s Palestine Action appeal hearing, including questions and observations from the bench.

The Court of Appeal hearing for the Home Secretary's appeal against the finding that the proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful has been listed for 28 April.

Elisabeth Laing LJ has granted Sex matters permission to challenge the Hampstead ladies ponds policy. Lieven J arguably wrong on delay/prematurity, standing, and reasons for refusing EoT. The case will now proceed to a full hearing in the High Court. sex-matters.org/wp-content/u…

Link to first judgment: judiciary.uk/wp-content/uplo… Link to second judgment: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov…

“It may be that some of these conclusions, particularly on the consequences of Westernisation, could have been subjected to challenge in the FTT, but the judge had to deal with the case on the basis that there was little if any challenge.”

“The Home Office did not lose because of any general finding that adult male Afghans who are convicted of a serious offence… cannot be deported. Rather, they lost because, having been served… with a substantial body of expert evidence… they did not seek to challenge them.”

In the tribunal, the Home Office did not challenge the appellant’s expert evidence on likelihood of inhumane/degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if returned. The Vice President of the Court of Appeal Civil Division, Bean LJ, said this of that “strategic decision”.

The second case is about an Afghan refugee’s appeal against deportation proceedings following a series of criminal convictions, including a conviction for aggravated burglary and theft. caselaw.nationalarchives.gov…

“… Had they been prosecuted, as they ought to have been, we concur with GC that they would have faced substantial prison sentences…”

“… Although there is no evidence that any of the single men whose illegal entry was facilitated by this OIC were ISIL supporters, that possibility cannot be excluded. G4 and G5 did not care about the credentials of those whose illegal entry they facilitated….”

“…SIAC recognises how difficult it is in practice for SSHD to remove those whose asylum or humanitarian claims have failed. [The Kurdish Region of Iraq] may well be unsafe for ISIL supporters but this country would not of course welcome those…”

“…the State wishes to encourage. The answer to damaging public confidence is not to be found in the consideration that many illegal entrants claim asylum and some of these claims succeed. That does not excuse [organised immigration crime]…”

“Illegal migration in defiance of the rules that the State is entitled to impose for reasons of its economic interests, public confidence and national security undermines the rule of law and risks weakening the public interest militating in favour of such legal migration that…”

“SIAC wholly endorses SSHD's view… that [organised immigration crime is a particularly corrosive and pernicious form of criminal activity…

On one view, this comment was unnecessary (and potentially inappropriate) given the case concerned a quite separate issue. There are further paragraphs towards the end that are quite full-throated (for the judiciary), in respect of the reliance on Art 8 ECHR in this context.

“We have to say that we are firmly of the view that the CPS reached the wrong conclusion in March 2019.”