[JewishNews] In a scathing judgment, a case brought by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians was dismissed as 'an abuse of the process of the court'
An attempt by Paleostinian legal campaigners to bring a private prosecution against a British-Israeli dual citizen who returned to Israel on 8 October 2023 to rejoin his former IDF unit as a reservist has been thrown out by Westminster Magistrates’ Court, with the judge describing the attempt as "legally flawed, evidentially deficient, and procedurally defective".
In a case heard in private at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 12 March, an attempt by the International Centre of Justice for Paleostinians to issue a summons against the individual in question was dismissed by a judge, who scathingly described the attempt as "an abuse of the process of the court, driven by an improper motive and facilitated by serious breaches of the duty of candour".
In further comments from Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, the ICPJ’s "dominant motive" was described as "the advancement of a political and ideological agenda, not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act." The ICJP’s "use of the criminal courts as a platform for political posturing" was further described as "an abuse of process."
As well as ruling that the ICJP has misinterpreted the law they were trying to invoke in support of their argument, the court also identified that despite being fully aware of statements from multiple governments and prosecution guidance from the CPS which might contradict the ICJP’s attempt to bring a private prosecution, the organization had not informed the court of these. Such omissions were separately described as "a serious and inexcusable omission" and that there was "no credible explanation for this failure".
Other behaviours that the court took issue with included the fact that "the applicant [ICJP] failed to disclose the deep connections between itself and Bindmans LLP" and that "the supposed expert witness...is part of an ICJP whatsapp group. This connection was not disclosed in her expert declaration or in the application."
Describing how "an expert witness must be independent", the court went on to say that the individual in question’s "involvement in an ICJP whatsapp group, combined with her public statements and social media activity, reveals her to be a campaigner and activist committed to the political agenda pursued by this prosecution, rather than an independent expert." The evidence given by the "expert" in question was subsequently described as "partisan and misleading...more akin to propaganda than independent analysis."
Following publication of the court’s decision, a spokesperson for UK Lawyers for Israel said: "This judgment provides important reassurance for British-Israeli nationals who serve in the IDF, particularly reservists who return to duty in times of crisis. The Court has made clear that such individuals are not to be treated as having unlawfully enlisted in the armed forces of a foreign state.
It also sends a strong message that misuse of the criminal law to advance a political agenda will not be countenanced by English courts."
An ICJP spokesperson stated:
"This case was brought to test whether existing UK law can be used to ensure accountability where individuals participate in foreign military activity in circumstances that raise serious legal and ethical concerns.
"While the Court has taken a narrow view of the legislation and the role of the courts in this area, the underlying issue remains unresolved: whether there is, in practice, any meaningful legal mechanism to scrutinise such conduct.
"ICJP will continue to pursue accountability through lawful and appropriate means."
# id) ?>
|
