Most arrests for decades

[motorbiking]

There was some lawyer person on R4 claiming that if they win their high court appeal against being proscribed, all the arrests will be illegal and those arrested can sue.

I wasn't convinced. I think the arrest is sound. (suspicion of), but the conviction would be unsafe.

 

[Highway Man]

Who let @Highway Man out again

Don't be so ridiculous, if that was me there would be nobody left standing.

 

[fillyboy]

There was some lawyer person on R4 claiming that if they win their high court appeal against being proscribed, all the arrests will be illegal and those arrested can sue.

I wasn't convinced. I think the arrest is sound. (suspicion of), but the conviction would be unsafe.

I read that regardless of whether or not they're charged, a trip to America or a job in the public sector will be impossible. F******g with anti terror laws ain't the smartest move.

 

[aveatry]

There was some lawyer person on R4 claiming that if they win their high court appeal against being proscribed, all the arrests will be illegal and those arrested can sue.

I wasn't convinced. I think the arrest is sound. (suspicion of), but the conviction would be unsafe.

But you can't back date it so it would be everyone from the date of a high court win wouldn't it. After they were prescribed they didn't back date and arrest People from previous marches

 

[MNW67]

But you can't back date it so it would be everyone from the date of a high court win wouldn't it. After they were prescribed they didn't back date and arrest People from previous marches

I am not really sure where to start on this one. Here is a little snippet I have found which might be relevant:

Claim for damages​

There is no right in judicial review to claim damages for losses caused by unlawful administrative actions. It is only possible to receive damages in judicial review claims if there is another established cause of action, separate to the ground for judicial review, such as breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office or a private action in tort.

For example, if a decision-maker takes into account an irrelevant consideration, this will likely provide grounds for quashing the decision on the basis of illegality, but it may also create a right to damages for misfeasance in public office if it can be proved that the action complained of was done knowingly or maliciously. Where a separate cause of action accrues, the claim for judicial review may include a claim for damages to avoid the need to bring parallel proceedings.

Even though damages are not available, there may be other financial gain to be had from bringing a judicial review claim. The publicity associated with a judicial review claim will often encourage a public body to retract a decision or settle the dispute.

Quickguide - Judicial Review

This guide seeks to answer a number of key questions relating to judicial review.

www.ashurst.com

 

[motorbiking]

But you can't back date it so it would be everyone from the date of a high court win wouldn't it. After they were prescribed they didn't back date and arrest People from previous marches

The act handles deproscription and those convicted. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/7

I am not really sure where to start on this one. Here is a little snippet I have found which might be relevant:

Quickguide - Judicial Review

This guide seeks to answer a number of key questions relating to judicial review.

www.ashurst.com

but the arrest is based on the reasonable suspicion, so it would still be lawful.

 

[MNW67]

There was some lawyer person on R4 claiming that if they win their high court appeal against being proscribed, all the arrests will be illegal and those arrested can sue.

Do you remember if they gave any reasoning. And do you remember which show it was and the approximate time.

 

[MNW67]

but the arrest is based on the reasonable suspicion, so it would still be lawful.

I was talking about suing the Home Secretary, not the police.

 

[motorbiking]

Do you remember if they gave any reasoning. And do you remember which show it was and the approximate time.

The argument appeared to be that the proscription was an unlawful infringement on freedom of speech.

 

[blup]

the arrest is based on the reasonable suspicion, so it would still be lawful.

How can a suspicion be reasonable if the courts decide the offence never existed. It’s surely possible to protect officers acting in good faith but declare the law to be wrong.

 

[motorbiking]

How can a suspicion be reasonable if the courts decide the offence never existed. It’s surely possible to protect officers acting in good faith but declare the law to be wrong.

The offence does exist and has done for ~25 years. The issue is whether that organisation should or should not be banned.

Reasonable suspicion has been tested in the ECHR:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

At the time of the arrest, based on the knowledge of the officer - the suspicion of an offence would be reasonable (IMO).

 

[blup]

The offence does exist and has done for ~25 years. The issue is whether that organisation should or should not be banned.

Reasonable suspicion has been tested in the ECHR:

HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the...

hudoc.echr.coe.int

At the time of the arrest, based on the knowledge of the officer - the suspicion of an offence would be reasonable (IMO).

Is attributing the same motive en bloc to 474 people really a reasonable suspicion or something pre determined on a police whatsapp group? Is Isreal guilty of supporting terrorism when it negotiates direct with Hammas. Is Kieth's stated intention to recognise Palistine not an act supporting terrorism given who, in practice, will continue to govern it?

 

[motorbiking]

Is attributing the same motive en bloc to 474 people really a reasonable suspicion or something pre determined on a police whatsapp group?

Section 12 is pretty clear.

Terrorism Act 2000

An Act to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order.

www.legislation.gov.uk

They are Proscribed.

Holding a Placard saying"I support the Baked Bean Action Group" is inviting support for the Baked Bean Action group.

There doesn't appear to be a need for motive.

Is Isreal guilty of supporting terrorism when it negotiates direct with Hammas.

No

Is Kieth's stated intention to recognise Palistine not an act supporting terrorism given who, in practice, will continue to govern it?

Maybe. but its up to him to deproscribe Hamas 2.0 if that is his plan.

 

[Munroast]

am i right in the following ?

A banner supporting Palestine would be OK
but a one supporting "Palestine Action" would be not as it is a designated terrorist organisation

but if it was worded
we need Action in Palestine - would that be a bit greyish, a bit close to the edge ?

and anyone with a placard about Jenocide ..... just sums up the whole left wing movement

 

[MNW67]

am i right in the following ?

A banner supporting Palestine would be OK
but a one supporting "Palestine Action" would be not as it is a designated terrorist organisation

I believe that is the case.