Law Firm Seeks To Remove Hamas From The UK Government Terror List
Stephen Daisley*
This week on Britain: The Decline Years, a firm of London solicitors has announced it is acting on behalf of Hamas in a legal challenge to the Islamist group’s inclusion on the UK government terror list.
The paramilitary wing has been proscribed since 2001 and the political wing since 2021. It took the British political class 20 years to establish a link between the Hamas department that calls for the Jews to be blown up and the department that does the blowing up.
This was in the days before streaming services, so Netflix couldn’t make a drama explaining the connection.
Riverway Law will lodge a 106-page application with the Home Office to have Hamas delisted. The application is signed by Mousa Abu Marzouk, the head of the terror group’s foreign relations office. In accordance with tradition, Marzouk lives in the ancient Palestinian city of Doha, to which many senior Hamas members can trace their bank accounts.
Marzouk’s application calls the UK government’s ban ‘unjust’ and ‘symptomatic of its unwavering support for Zionism’. Britain is also, according to the application, guilty of ‘complicity in the genocide of our people’.
It’s important to note that ‘Hamas does not deny that its actions fall within the wide definition of “terrorism” under the Terrorism Act 2000,’ the application states.
However, ‘it notes that the definition also covers all groups and organisations around the world that use violence to achieve political objectives, including the Israeli armed forces, the Ukrainian army and, indeed, the British armed forces’.
Comparing British soldiers to bloodthirsty terrorists. You can see why this case would appeal to solicitors.
Nevertheless, the applicants contend that the terrorist designation contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights, on the grounds that it ‘unlawfully restricts the freedom of speech and assembly’ of Hamas sympathisers. If there’s one thing we know about Britain, it’s that assembling in public to express sympathy with Hamas is not tolerated.
There are those who might object to a British law firm, or at least a London one, taking on Hamas as a client, but we must all remember to respect the cab-rank rule. Admittedly, most taxi passengers don’t come with their own armed jihad wing, not even in London, but nonetheless a client is a client and they would say the decision to take this case has absolutely nothing to do with the politics of the solicitors involved.
It is interesting to see, however, that one of them tweeted on October 7, 2023:
For almost two decades “Israel” has trapped more than two million people in an open air prison for the “crime” of being insufficiently Jewish. We owe Palestinians our solidarity in their struggle against this naked racial domination. Victory to the intifada.
As one not learned in the law, I can’t say whether the application stands much of a chance, but I would note that, if it is rejected by Yvette Cooper, applicants will have recourse to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. The commission is headed by a senior English judge, so Hamas could come out of this with compensation, indefinite leave to remain, and a Palestinian state in Surrey.
As with so many problems that blight our suicidal nation, the origin of this one lies in foolhardy legislation, in this case section four of the Terrorism Act, which gives proscribed groups the right to appeal. There are several options open to parliament. MPs could repeal section four altogether, or they could retain the appeal process but abolish the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission and place the Home Secretary’s decision beyond the scope of judicial review. Parliament could also prohibit solicitors or barristers from acting on behalf of or to the direct benefit of proscribed organisations. Or maybe the time has come for some statutory tightening up of the regulation of the legal profession to prevent these sorts of cases from being taken on, perhaps even a change in the approved regulator.
A spokesperson for Riverway Law said:
“Lawyers must not be identified with their clients or causes, as doing so endangers them for performing their duties. The UK has a history of breaching this principle, including the murders of Patrick Finucane and Rosemarie Nelson. In 2020, the Law Society and Bar Council had to warn Priti Patel after a far-right terrorist attacked an immigration firm following hostile rhetoric.
“Media outlets promoting such narratives put targets on our staff, who are already facing hate calls, threats, and doxxing. In the circumstances, we urge The Spectator to deal with the legal issues, rather than endanger the lawyers.”
*This article was first published by The Spectator. Stephen Daisley writes for The Spectator and The Scottish Daily Mail and also publishes his columns and comment on Substack
