Palestine Action refuses to apologise for sledgehammer attack against policewoman
A lawyer representing Palestine Action repeatedly said that the group refused to condemn a sledgehammer attack that broke a policewoman’s back during a Supreme Court hearing challenging its terrorism ban. Raza Hussain KC, representing the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, who brought the appeal, repeatedly stated that the group did not condemn the attack on Sergeant Kate Evans, whose spine was fractured during a raid on an Israeli-linked arms factory in Bristol.
During a two-day hearing in central London this week, five justices considered a challenge to the government's decision to proscribe the direct action group as a terrorist organisation. During proceedings, Lord Stephens of Creevyloughgare pressed Husain over the group's response to the attack on Evans, who was injured during a raid on an Elbit Systems factory in August 2024. Lord Stephens asked: “In relation to the Bristol incident which involved a sledgehammer being slammed into the back of the police officer, was that condemned by Palestine Action?”
Husain responded: “It was not. That is sub judice.” The judge pressed him, asking: “Is it presently condemned by Palestine Action?” Today at the Supreme Court Raza Husain KC who is arguing to overturn the ban on Palestine Action repeatedly admitted the group had NOT condemned the brutal attack on a police officer by one of their members. Shameful. pic.twitter.com/gnw37yoAnc — Heidi Bachram (@HeidiBachram) November 5, 2026 Husain initially replied that the case was “the subject of challenge” before repeatedly acknowledging that the attack “has not been” condemned.
The hearing saw arguments about the extent to which Palestine Action could be held responsible for violent incidents carried out during its direct action operations. Henry Blaxland KC, also representing Ammori, sought to distinguish the assault on Evans from the wider objectives of those involved in the Bristol raid. He told the court: “Notoriously, while inside the factory, one of the red team [which carried out the raid while a so-called ‘black team’ provided a distraction] assaulted a police officer who was detaining another one and caused her serious injury.
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article frames the case around violence but omits the defence's central argument, reported by the JC the day before: only three of 385 actions were assessed as meeting the terrorism definition, and Palestine Action is the first proscribed group banned exclusively for property damage. A reader believes the ban rests on violence against people.
How we know
- The Jewish Chronicle wrote earlier“only three out of 385 actions carried out by Palestine Action over a five-year period were assessed as meeting the definition of terrorism”Supreme Court defers verdict on Palestine Action ban appeal (opens in a new tab)
- Evening Standard reported“first of 98 proscribed organisations to be banned exclusively for causing serious damage to property”Arrests made as Supreme Court begins hearing appeal against Palestine Action ban (opens in a new tab)
“But there was – and I think this is important – no suggestion that this was intended or contemplated by the others. There was no joint enterprise charge in relation to that.” But the president of the court, Lord Reed of Allermuir, observed that “it might be said that’s liable to happen if, as they are encouraged to do, you go in armed with sledgehammers”. The hearing also examined Palestine Action's targeting of Jewish-owned businesses and the consequences of lifting the group's proscription.
The Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and Community Security Trust (CST) were granted permission to submit evidence about the threat they believe Palestine Action poses to British Jews. The targeting of Jewish businesses was also raised directly by Lord Reed during exchanges with Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office. “We saw, for example, [then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper] drew attention in her statement to parliament to the attack on the Jewish business in north London,” Reed said.
Left out here: Drops what it reported before
The article reports that the JLC and CST submitted evidence about the threat they see to British Jews, but drops the Jewish Bloc's submission, which the JC itself reported the day before, calling the claim that Palestine Action targeted the Jewish community a fundamental fallacy. A reader believes the Jewish organisations before the court spoke with one voice for the ban.
How we know
- The Jewish Chronicle wrote earlier“Rachel Scott KC, for the Jewish Bloc, a group of Jewish organisations in the UK”Supreme Court defers verdict on Palestine Action ban appeal (opens in a new tab)
The Supreme Court hears the Palestine Action challenge to proscription (YouTube/SupremeCourt)[Missing Credit] The allegations of antisemitism were addressed by Husain, who cited a statement from Andrew Feinstein, an anti-Israel activist and former South African MP who started the Camden People's Alliance in opposition to Sir Keir Starmer. Introducing Feinstein's evidence, Husain described him as the “son of a Holocaust survivor” and “two-time member of Parliament under Nelson Mandela” before reading his statement to the court.
“I would never support Palestine Action if they were remotely antisemitic, my conscience would never allow me,” Feinstein said, per Husain. “Palestine Action never targeted Jewish people or Jewish businesses… it is regrettable that Jewish people are suffering from increased antisemitism, it has nothing whatsoever to do with us, the idea that it does we reject in the strongest possible terms.” The Supreme Court is considering whether the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action amounted to a disproportionate interference with free expression and association under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The High Court ruled in February that the ban was unlawful, but that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in June, and Ammori's appeal to the Supreme Court followed. The five justices reserved their judgment following the hearing and the proscription remains in force pending their decision, a date for which has not been announced.
Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)