Britain22 December, 20253 min read
UK Justice Secretary Refuses To Meet Palestine Action Hunger Strikers, Lawyers Threaten High Court
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Justice Secretary David Lammy refused lawyers' meeting; lawyers warned of High Court action At least two Palestine Action hunger strikers were admitted to hospital with severe deterioration
7 outlets told this the same way.
Hunger strike legal action
Lawyers representing a group of Palestine Action activists have sent a pre-action letter to Justice Secretary David Lammy after he refused to meet them to discuss the welfare of prisoners on a rolling hunger strike. Legal teams, including Imran Khan & Partners, warned officials they would bring a High Court case unless the government replied within a short deadline, and said the strike has been ongoing since early November and involves eight activists aged about 20–31. Sources say the strike has reached a critical stage, with at least one protester reportedly without food for 51 days, prompting urgent legal warnings that the risk of death increases daily.
“Lawyers for imprisoned activists linked to Palestine Action have warned the British government they will bring a High Court case after the justice secretary refused to meet them to discuss the protesters’ welfare.”
Hunger strike health crisis
Multiple outlets describe serious medical deterioration and hospital transfers among the hunger strikers. Reports list individuals by name and day counts. Amy 'Amu' Gardiner‑Gibson (Amu Gib) has been without food for about 51 days and was hospitalised around day 50.
Kamran Ahmed has been on strike for about 42–44 days and was hospitalised twice. Other strikers have been sent to hospital at least once and two ended their strikes after 41 and 13 days respectively.
Lawyers and campaigners warn that the danger of death is mounting and say the situation is now life‑threatening. These accounts stress repeated hospital care and weight loss as indicators of escalating medical risk.
Legal and political claims
Prisoners are demanding an end to censorship of correspondence, immediate bail, the right to a fair trial and that Palestine Action be de-proscribed. Campaigners are also calling for wider protests and for the closure of Elbit.
“The prisoners’ demands include an end to censorship of correspondence, immediate bail, the right to a fair trial, de‑proscribing Palestine Action, and shutting down Elbit.”
Lawyers say many activists have been held on remand for longer than the UK’s usual six-month pre-trial limit and have been denied bail ahead of trials expected in 2026–27. The issue also intersects with the government’s proscription of Palestine Action, with the High Court reviewing the ban and lawyers warning of potential human-rights challenges if ministers do not meet their deadline.
Government response to prison care
The government has rejected allegations of inadequate care and refused lawyers' request to meet. Officials said prison procedures and necessary medical care are being followed. They warned against creating what ministers called "perverse incentives" that could encourage other inmates to self-harm and pointed to established NHS prison healthcare and monitoring.
Ministers argued that meeting lawyers while legal proceedings are active could breach the separation of powers. Lord Timpson noted hunger strikes occur frequently in prisons, about 200 cases a year.
Media coverage differences
Coverage differs markedly by source type. West Asian Al Jazeera stresses the prospect of High Court action and the immediate risk of death. Western mainstream outlets such as The Telegraph emphasise the historical scale of the strike, reference procedural safeguards, and use measured legal language.
“Lawyers for imprisoned activists linked to Palestine Action have warned the British government they will bring a High Court case after the justice secretary refused to meet them to discuss the protesters’ welfare.”
Western tabloids (The Mirror, Metro) highlight hospitalisations, dramatic day counts, and legal threats in urgent tones. Western alternative outlets (Middle East Eye, TheNational.scot) focus on accusations of negligence, restricted family contact, political context, and calls from doctors and MPs to intervene. These differences reflect editorial priorities: naming and humanising individuals and imminent legal deadlines (tabloids and Al Jazeera).
Mainstream outlets prioritise legal and procedural framing. Alternative outlets offer explicit criticism of government neglect.