Hamas vs. UK Gov case explained (ft. lawyer Daniel Grütters)

There is no expression of support or expression of personal views within this podcast. As a result of recent public interest in the application which is to be considered by the home secretary, we have asked a lawyer to explain what it is that the home secretary will be considering. Asalamikum brothers and sisters.

You may have seen the news yesterday. Uh we're recording this on Thursday the 10th of April 2025. Uh we may have seen the news this morning actually.

Uh things like headlines like Hamas court challenge to the home office. Um we're sitting with Daniel Grutters or Hutas uh today. Thank you very much for meeting us.

He's one of the barristers instructed by Riverside Law on behalf of the client Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement. So I guess my first question is are we breaking the law right now? Uh no we're not.

We're not. what we're doing today uh as far as I'm concerned is explaining what this application is is saying and and and what it's seeking to achieve and uh and and really explaining the arguments that Secretary State uh is now going to consider. Uh and so we're just helping your viewers understand what it's all about.

Um what we're not doing and what is a criminal offense is expressing views or beliefs that are supportive of prescribed organization and that's certainly something that um we will not be doing today. um because that of course is a criminal offense. So just to be clear and in in in yesterday's press conference which we published some clips of um you mentioned along alongside your colleagues that support showing support for this case or the arguments within the case shouldn't be construed or is is is separate from showing support for uh Hamas or any other organization in doing so it's still a criminal offense.

Exactly. Exactly. And that's very important.

Um this application uh does not give people um the possibility of expressing support. That remains a criminal offense. People should not do that.

Um um but people can support the application because there is good reasons why uh people may wish to support that application that have nothing to do with the prescribed organization itself. and and I'm sure we'll get into that later, but as long as people make that distinction and as long as they don't um fear into territory where they're expressing beliefs or opinions that are supportive, uh they can they can support the application. Um so speaking of which, I want us to basically have a good understanding of what the case actually argues, what what what's the case.

Um tell us a bit about the the expert witnesses. just give us a crash course in the case if you don't mind because it's been less than 24 hours I think since um since it's been since gone live and it's hundreds and hundreds of pages of um what appears to be from layman's perspective really wellargued uh case uh with lots of um you know famous um well-renowned experts contributing as as expert um experts to with reports so you know where do you start how do you how would you like to explain this case to our viewers? Sure.

So I think a helpful way of starting is by explaining that the application um has the legal submissions uh which which are quite extensive 106 pages uh I believe um is how it's come out. Um and then there's um expert reports in support of the application. Um and those reports as you said come from a variety of of sources uh academics uh lawyers um journalists u and the like.

Um and it's people who have knowledge or expertise on topics that relate to the background of the application uh and that are intended to assist the home secretary in understanding this very complex context in which this application uh is being made. So those are the those are the two parts of of the application. Um uh and we we can talk a little bit later about what the various um expert reports are, but the application itself sets out summarizes the context that that the uh application uh suggests is important for the secretary state to to consider and and refers the secretary state to all of those expert reports.

But it also summarizes um the the context. And what the application then does, it says, well, here's the law on various topics relevant to this application. And then the application sets out three grounds um which the application invites secretary state to consider and which the application suggested Secretary of State should lead her to conclude um that Hamas should not be prescribed but instead should be deprescribed.

And that is a process that parliament has provided for under the terrorism act um 2000. Um and uh it's really a a question of due process. Um the secretary of state, previous secretary of state in 2021 decided to ban the entirety of the organization of Hamas.

uh and parliament has said when that happens the organization or person concerned should be able to apply for that decision to be to be different. Um uh and then if uh well yeah so but that's that's that's what the that's what the the process about. So what the application then does we can go in a little bit more detail if you want but the but before before you go into just to clarify it's it was only not many people re uh remember this but it was only you know less three or four years ago that they actually did become a prescribed organization in entirety right so exactly so so the uh alkasan brigades often referred to as the armed wing uh of Hamas was prescribed um as early as I believe 2001 one.

Um but it was uh in uh 2021 that the then secretary of state Peter Patel uh decided that the distinction that the prescription had maintained between the armed wing and the political wing uh in other words those with weapons and those who are running the civil administration in the Gaza Strip that that distinction was artificial and that she was going to ban the entirety of the organization. So that's indeed relatively uh recent. Um and one of the things the application sets out is the uh sudden departure um that the application suggests that decision represents from what had been the government's approach to that distinction uh until that point.

And that's one of the um ways in which some of the arguments are are being explained in the application. Mhm. And she did come quite some criticism as well from uh many commentators when it came to off the books visits to Israel and and um um alleged kind of influence from Netanyahu and his and his cronies.

But out of interest, how many countries actually in the world prescribe Hamas in this way? Is this like a is the UK part of a like the majority of the world here or so just to take one step about your comment about pretty so one of the uh and this this might help explain what some of the expert reports do. So for example one of the experts that has contributed uh several reports professor Aishlame uh who's of course an eminent expert um uh on on matters relating to um Israel and Zionism and he's that's one of the topics that he covers in in his expert report.

He talks about um uh Pretty Patel and her relationship um uh with the certain officials in in the state of Israel and and the manner in which she uh was asked to leave a previous government before she returned as as as home secretary in a in a in a subsequent government. Um so it's those type that type of background where it's experts that have written up these reports setting out relevant facts and that's that that was considered a relevant fact. Um, so that can help again the secretary of state understanding that that complex context.

Um, look, I'm I'm a I'm an English barristister. Uh, I I I understand English law and English legal systems and I understand uh the prescription system in in in in the UK. um other legal systems have other uh ways in which they can ban organizations and and the consequences that those bans have.

Um, it's my understanding um as a uh you know as a as a as a person who has an interest in these sort of questions that there's not that many countries uh that have um banned Hamas in at least not in the way that the sector state has in in in the UK. Um, but there are there are various countries that have um and um uh and that have similar provisions in place. So I think it's a bit of a mixed bag.

It's it's probably my guess would be there's probably more countries that don't do it than a country who do do it. Um um but yeah, that's that that's a matter potentially for the secretary of state to consider whether that's a relevant consideration uh how other countries uh look at it. Okay, thanks.

So you were explaining the the background. Yeah. So so what the what the background section does which is which is quite extensive um it explains um the some of the background to the organization.

So it sets out the foundation and and what it claims to have been its purpose. Um it talks about how the organization changed during the Oslo courts and the elections that took place following the OSA court. So the application explains that and the interaction with some of the other political factions, Palestine political factions.

Um and um uh so it goes into quite a bit of detail uh about the history. Um, it deals with the difference between what often called the 1998 charter and the 2017 charter and how uh the organization seems to have developed um uh the way it expresses itself at least and and and potentially the way it it views itself and its role in in the conflict. So the application sets that history out and again that is done by referring to some of the experts who have studied the organization in an academic context and have written books about it.

Um and and their expertise is in a way summarized by the application in in those sections. Um and again it's it's to give the secretary of state the necessary context of understanding what the organization claims to be about um as described by by academic experts um not just by uh the organization themselves. I mean the application does have witness statements from the organization and and those obviously provide information as well for the secretary of state the charter.

Yeah, exactly. Um and uh I mean I I won't go through every single um section, but then there's there's a a large section on the the British support for Zionism. And what the application seeks to do, it tries to explain to the secretary of state that the uh British state historically seems to have provided support for the Zionist movement uh and then subsequently um for the state of Israel.

Um and the application suggested that that that was the wrong thing to do um um strategically and morally and then the application suggests to the secretary of state that this may be a moment um for the British to take a different approach from what it historically has taken. So, um there's a whole section on that um history starting as early as the ball for decoration of 2017 um and going up to 1917 partly 1917. Yes.

Going back all the way to 1917 uh and then uh up till uh contemporary what the application calls the contemporary British support. Um a and that um refers to some of the direct actions for example that that that we're seeing in in in the UK and the response of the of the British government to that. Um uh direct action you mean?

Well, so so um the the application sets out that there are uh weapon manufacturers that are based in the UK that are producing weapons uh that the application suggests are being sent uh to um Israel and are being used uh in its genocide uh in the Gaza Strip. Um, and the application suggests that Britain allowing those manufacturers to be manufacturing weapons in the UK is is a form of support. Um, it also makes reference to the so-called spy flights that the application um suggests journalists have reported on happening um that British planes are flying over the Gaza Strip amounted to material support for Well, exactly.

So that's what that's what the that's what the application uh argues um and what the application asks secretary state to consider. So that that maybe is a good opportunity to sort of dive in straight into the the first ground um of the of the application um which is basically to say the United Kingdom has obligations under international law um and uh the way that the Secretary of State exercises her discretion in relation to which group she does and doesn't prescribe um should be consistent with that obligation. That's the that's the argument that the application the first round it makes and it specifically um makes arguments in relation to the crime of genocide, the crime uh crimes against humanity including the crime of apart height um as well as um the crime of uh illegal belligerent occupation.

Uh and what the application does, it sets out um in relation to for example the crime of apartheid, it sets out judgment by the international court of justice from last year that deal with the policies uh and practices of the state of Israel um in the occupied Palestine territories um and the conclusion of the ICJ um that the state of Israel is is practicing has has practices and and in relation to Palestines uh that are discriminatory and that are in breach of the prohibition on on apartheite. Um and what the application says here is the foremost international judicial body setting out um that this crime is being committed um and then suggests that the British government has a duty to end those type of crimes from being committed. Um so um you mentioned apartheid, genocide and occupation.

So apartheid and genocide are things that in its public discourse the British British government hasn't appeared doesn't appear to have accepted yet. Um and the issue of genocide, the trial on the merits of the ICJ is going to take probably years, right, in terms of giving an official um kind of ruling that this is genocide. But when it comes to occupation, does the British government, the British state refer to any Palestinian territory as occupied?

Um, are you not aware of that? So, let me let me just take you first back on to the to the genocide point because yes, it's it's you're correct to say that the British government um hasn't uh or at least the application doesn't suggest that the British government has accepted those allegations. Um but the application suggests that that doesn't matter because the the question at this point for the British government isn't necessarily whether a genocide is actually happening.

Um that is as you say something that uh is going to be debated in the international court of justice in due course. Um uh the application does set out the fact that organizations like Human Rights Watch, MC International, Medicine, Sons Frontier, um as well as various um uh students of the or or scholars on the Holocaust. Um so for example, the the the application me mentions Amos Goldberg, mentions Omar Bartov, um mentions Ras Seagal.

uh the these are these are scholars and and the fact that they in their expertise consider that a genocide is taking place. So the application sets out the reason why uh it suggests a secretary a genocide is happening. It sets out the evidence but crucially the the application explains that even if it transpires in the future that a genocide wasn't happening uh and that and that all those organizations and those scholars were wrong.

The key point is that it's plausible that there may be and that's what the ICJ effectively held in the case with South Africa where South Africa said well we can argue about the details and due course but at the moment if a genocide is happening that should stop um because it's obviously it's irredeemable if if it is happening and and we find out years down the line it's too late and so the question for the international court of justice there was whether or not it was plausible and the ICJ found it was what the application says is is that fact in and of itself and all the evidence that South Africa has put forward and all this other evidence um is enough for the secretary state to uh consider that there's a possibility that a genocide is happening and that is enough to trigger the duty to prevent the genocide from happening because what international law the genocide convention uh the duty that it has developed the genocide convention makes it clear that it's not just about punishing people after they committed genocide, but it's to prevent it, of course, because it's it's it's the most horrific crime that exists. Um, and of course, in the wake of the Second World War, um, uh, and the Holocaust, um, there was a a great sense, uh, by those who who who drafted and then the state parties that became party citizens at this convention, there was a great sense of we can never let this happen again. And that's why there's a duty to prevent it.

And that's the argument that the application makes, which is to say there's real, you know, the application says a genocide is happening, but it also says even if you disagree, there's enough evidence to um uh to suspect that that that may be the case to trigger your duty to take every reasonable step to prevent it. So that's uh on the issue of genocide. Even if they don't accept that genocide is happening, the fact that there's a trial going on, the fact that, you know, the ICJ has said is is a plausible case for genocide um triggers their duties under the genocide convention.

That's what you're saying. Exactly. And and that's where the application makes the argument to say the organization that's actually trying to end that genocide by military force is Hamas.

Okay. And therefore, regardless of the views that the Secretary of State may have of Hamas, the application says that you should not inhibit that organization from its ability to resist uh or end and pre prevent that genocide from happening. Um and so that's the argument that that the application makes that the secretary state now has to consider.

Um but does the the British government refer to any of Palestine or historic Palestine as occupied? Yes. So the the the consistent position as I understand it of the um British government uh which is consistent with the the consensus the international consensus is that the territories um that were occupied by the state of Israel following the war in 1967 um that those territories um they're referred to as occupied they're referred to as the occupied Palestine territory.

singular. So even though it's not continuous, that is considered the territory um of the Palestinians. Um and that occupation um is illegal according to the international courts of justice.

Uh again illegal that occupation is illegal and that that that is one of the other arguments that the application makes. It's it refers back to the judgment international court of justice and dealing specifically with the occupation by the state of Israel of those territories um which it occupied uh following the uh war in 1967. And it says that that occupation, not only is it um uh an occupation that's has discriminatory practices such that it segregates and and breaches the prohibition on apartheite um but also that it's um that it's illegal um and that it should end as soon as possible and that it should compensate the Palestinians for the losses they have suffered as a result of that occupation.

And again that decision is crystal clear um as to what is happening in those territories uh and and and what is right uh legally and what is wrong legally. Um and the British government's position uh on the judgment itself I I believe they they are still considering it. Believe when they were last asked about it they were they they said they were considering a judgment which it's a long detailed judgment.

Um is that the one from 200 24 24 last last that came out okay that came out last year there's there's another judgment from 2004 which is even older uh which is often referred to as the war opinion so in that case um again it's an advisory opinion so where the United Nations asks the ICJ to give its expert opinion on on a on a matter and there the question was whether the the wall uh or the separation barrier that state of Israel was building in the uh occupied West Bank. Um whether that was lawful or or not. Um and the argument state of Israel effectively made was well this is for our safety.

Um and the conclusion of the International Court of Justice was well that may be the case but the land on which you are building and the land that you're expropriating from the Palestinians belongs to the Palestinians and for you to take that land uh even if it's to build uh a wall or separation barrier for the purposes of safety is unlawful. if you want to build such a barrier or wall, you should do so on your own territory. Um, so that's the 2004 opinion and and that of course was premised on the idea that the uh that the West Bank was occupied that that and that the Ford Geneva Convention applied to that territory uh and limited what state of Israel could and couldn't do in those territories.

Um and it made it very clear that those territories are the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And in that position, the reason of course why the ICJ express that view is because it's a consensus view amongst most countries in the world. Um and uh there's really only a really small group of of countries that that that disagree with that.

One of those being the state of Israel. Um but uh what's the British government's view on that then? Um well the the as I understand the British government's view is um that um um because they appear to have quite staunch condemnation for settler violence and you know in the West Bank and the building of settlements and so forth.

Almost like a completely different script to you know how they talk about Gaza. Well, the the reason the the underlying reason why the occupation is is is raises very serious questions um for other states. So, not necessar obviously for the Palestinians and Israelis they they raise loads of practical and and direct issues of of of uh you know that are obvious to anyone who who have a familiarity with the conflict.

But the problem it raises for other states is that it undermines the uh prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force. Uh so that is a a principle that that's been very at the at the core of the international legal order since the second world war which is one country cannot attack another country and take part of its territory. Um and of course that principle the idea is that that would limit or minimize uh conflict because the incentive of attacking another country so you can steal their resources and their land um uh is removed from the equation and that the the thinking goes minimizes uh unless you call them terrorists.

But to go back to your question, it's for that reason that that many countries, including the United Kingdom government, have consistently um taken a view that the occupation should end and that in its place should be a Palestinian state and it's often referred to as a two-state solution. Um uh so that is that is consistently uh been the position of the of the British government. Um so so in summary the the first ground is um the secretary of state for um the home the home secretary has obligations under international law [Music] to stop genocide to not provide any material support for genocide aparttheid and occupation it doesn't matter if it believes right now there's genocide happening or not.

The fact that the arguments are being made and the call is there that there's a pro plausible genocide happening is enough to trigger her obligation on international law. She or the government accepts that there are Palestinian there are occupied Palestinian territories. Um and it it's you're arguing or the application argues it's unlawful to provide material support for that.

Is that correct? Yes. So the the application suggests that the Hamas represents the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.

Mhm. At least in the Gaza Strip. And it and that right of people to self-determination, which is is a very wellestablished principle in international law, includes the right to self-defense and armed resistance.

And that includes the right to resist genocide, occupation, and crimes against humanity. And it says that Hamas, at least in the Gaza Strip, is the organization that is exercising that right. Mhm.

And that the uh British state has a duty um also to end those crimes from happening. Uh and that it should do all it reasonably can. And one of the things that this that the application argues to the secretary state, one of the things the secretary state can do is to stop inhibiting this armed group from trying to end genocide, crimes against humanity and occupation.

And the prescription of course is intended, that's what the application says, that the prescription is intended to inhibit the ability of Hamas to do those things. Mhm. So that's the argument that the application makes to the secretary state and that she will now have to uh consider.

That's the first ground. That's the first ground of three. Yes.

And the second and third one. Yes. The second ground is a freedom of speech argument.

Um and so it's not just to clarify because I was reading the papers this morning. So there was a suggestion that um uh uh Hamas is trying to rely on on the European Convention of Human Rights for their rights. Um but that's not that's not um I think quite an accurate way of describing the application.

What the application says um is that their prescription um is a unlawful interference with the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly of the British people um and that the secretary of state in exercising her discretion as to which groups should or shouldn't be prescribed uh should exercise that discretion in a way that is consistent with the British people's freedom of speech. Mhm. And so what the argument says is prescription interferes with people's freedom of speech.

And that's that's an uncontroversial proposition. The application suggests because the way in which prescription is given effect is by restricting what people can say and do in relation to a prescribed organization. Mhm.

So, as we said at the beginning of the interview, it's a criminal offense to express views or opinions that are supportive of a prescribed organization. Um, that of course means that one cannot, if one has those views, one cannot express them. That is restricting speech.

It's fairly uncontroversial. The applications suggest to say that, but the European Convention does allow for restricting freedom of speech. it it doesn't suggest that all speech um uh is is fine in the way that sometimes it appears in the United States where freersears to be fairly unrestrained.

Um the approach to article 10 is to say is the speech lawful? In other words, is it um is it set in law? Is it therefore can you understand what the law says?

which it's accepted in the application that that is the case here because you can, you know, there's a list of prescribed organizations. It's a list that's um accessible. People can find it.

It's clear. Uh, you know, Hamas certainly is is aware that they're prescribed. Uh, and generally people um can can find that out.

But then the question is whether it's necessary and proportionate. Um and that question there's various elements to that question but the most important element the application suggests is whether or not it seeks to achieve a legitimate aim. And what the application says is it doesn't that the prescription of Hamas doesn't seek to achieve one of the legitimate aims of restricting people's freedom of speech.

That's what the argument says. And what the application says that there is no uh reason for freedom of speech to be restricted in the UK in relation to a group that doesn't operate in the UK. So whatever may be true for the speech of those who are in the region um in historic Palestine where of course the prescribed organization does operate.

what the application says specifically in the UK uh it doesn't operate it never has operated and never will that's what the application says and so to restrict people's speech um doesn't achieve any legitimate objective instead what the application suggests to the secretary of state is that the reason it's been banned is because the secretary of state at the time Patel disagrees with that organization and its ideas and its objectives And you have Avishi Schlames, Professor Aish Schlames kind of report that you mentioned highlighting that this is her, you know, her own background and her own kind of links to one side of this conflict. Exactly. And that's that's what the application does.

It sets, as you said, has all these expert reports and then summarizes and and explains how that's relevant to the legal argument. And indeed the application um says that the objective here is not to provide some sort of safety um for the British public um but it's to stop the British public from hearing views that the secretary doesn't like. And of course the application sets out that that's not um that that's not lawful that it's not lawful to restrict uh views because one doesn't like them.

Um, and that's that's really the the second ground is to say regardless of your view of the organization and regardless of your views of their activities uh in historic Palestine, the British public should have the right to speak about that organization without criminal sanction. um uh in the same way the the application explains um that people who may be supportive of the state of Israel should not be uh criminally penalized for expressing views supportive of the genocide that's taking place in the Gaza Strip um or the occupation or the apartheid system that the state of Israel has has imposed um just because one disagrees with the views the application says doesn't mean one can criminalize those views. So that's the the second ground and then the third ground is goes to the overall proportionality of the decision.

So the secretary of state will have to consider to what extent prescribing or continuing to prescribe unless is a proportionate decision. uh and there's a variety of of grounds that that she's asked to take into account uh as part of that of that argument. So among among that for example are the reference to the what used to be called the quartets uh preconditions.

So back uh following the election of Hamas um uh the uh United Nations uh European Union, United States and Russia called the Quartet and uh their envoy of course uh in the past was uh Tony Blair. Um they set out preconditions uh and said we are only going to engage with the new Hadmas Hamas administration um if they uh give up their uh use of force uh if they recognize Israel and if they uh accept the previous agreements that were reached between the PLO um which of course was dominated by FATA and the state of Israel. So those were the the cortets preconditions um and the application suggests secretary state that applying those type of conditions to questions of prescription or deprescription um would be wrong.

So it suggests that in relation to uh the use of armed force it makes two points. The first is that the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people is well established. Um and that therefore their right to use armed force um is is also recognized and is not something that they should be asked to renounce in the same way that nobody is asking the state of Israel to renounce their right um to self-defense and use of armed force to protect their people.

The secondly is the question of recognition. Um and the point the application there makes is um again first of all the state of Israel uh is not required um to recognize the Palestinian state uh or even the right of the Palestinians to a state um before it can be engaged with by other countries like the United Kingdom. And so it would be the application suggests it would be wrong to make impose that uh only on uh the Palestinians.

Uh it also suggests that it's it's very unhelpful and it draws the analogy with with other historic examples um where for example um the north of Ireland where of course there were for a long time as as most of your audience will know there was a conflict there which was resolved by avoiding in a in a way the question of of recognition uh and by saying that those who want to see United Ireland can continue to uh desire that and can continue to campaign for that and there there may be some type of referendum in the future on that question. Um and those who um want wanted wanted the north of Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom um similarly um kind of continue to live uh in the way that they are um as part of being part of Britain. Which is why if you go to the north of Ireland, you can cross the border as if there is no border.

So that those who consider it all to be a single country called Ireland can live as far as possible that way. Of course, there's different currencies and different street signs, but the idea of recognition being a precondition for the resolving of the conflict. Um, the application suggests that that's that's not the right approach.

And it gives various reasons uh that Hamas has for not recognizing uh the state of Israel. um um but that it has made offers uh of of of what's called a hutna, a long-term truth um um such that there can be peace in the region and so that those questions uh of recognition and permanent settlement can be um resolved by future generations. That's the application sets out sets out that point.

Similarly with the acceptment of previous agreements, it points out how the state of Israel um um has decided to ignore various international agreements. Uh and so the application suggests it's not right um for the UK to require only the Palestinians to abide by previous agreements as a precondition for settlement. Um so those are some of the some of the uh arguments we made on the ground three.

Others are to do with democracy and the application sets out how Hamas was elected in in what observers called a free and fair election. Um it explains how it's the civil administration and so uh it runs the the government in the Gaza Strip and um by equating the entire organization with with uh terrorism it equates you know people nurses, doctors, garbage collectors, street sweepers, teachers, anyone. Exactly.

and and it suggests that that type of mass criminalization is is is not a constructive approach um to dealing with any concerns the secretary state may have about um Hamas. So for example like a Palestinian sending remittances back home if their relative happens to be a teacher or something and his or her salary comes from the ministry of education then technically they would be a member of a prescribed organization or something or indirectly. Exactly.

Well, the the the application suggests that those sort of questions are are very concerning and that again suggests that it's disproportionate to describe the entirety of the organization uh as a terrorist organization and and and all that that entails when it is part of a you know more than two million people's uh government that runs their lives. um uh and obviously does so far beyond u any of the reasons where why originally for example the kasam brigades may have been prohibited that's what the the application seeks to seeks to explain and it also um uh I mean like I said there's various other arguments under that ground that the application make but one of them is um the need to reach a political settlement and it draws from experts report from expert reports um dealing with the other context similar context for example the north of Ireland as I mentioned earlier but also the South African context um and those experts and suggest that prescription um may make peaceful settlement more difficult because it makes it difficult uh to engage in in negotiated settlements because it's difficult for people to sit down with the organization if they're prescribed. If it's a criminal offense to have a meeting with someone, it's very difficult to to have that meeting.

And so the application suggests that deprescribing will help facilitate a long-term political settlement. Um, so those are, you know, as short as I can can summarize, those are the arguments that the application makes and it invites the secretary to consider them. Uh, and it invites the secretary state to exercise your discretion um in a different way from uh that that her predecessor did.

Um and th those are those are the questions now for for the secretary of state to consider. So how do you um I haven't had a chance to go through all of the expert reports here. So how how would you um advise people go through these reports?

What what's the the sub subtext behind the Well, so so there they're interesting reports and um uh you know we the application invites secretary states to consider them. Um and they they track a little bit along the line of the of the factual summary that I gave. So Zionism and British support uh for it.

Um then there's reports on the conditions of Palestine lives in the occupied Palestinian territories. Um then there is uh reports on uh resistance to settler colonialism because one of the arguments that the application makes is that the state of Israel is a settler colonial state um and that the secretary has to understand the way it acts in his ideology in that in that context. And so there's various reports that deal um with that topic.

Um and then there's there's reports on on uh the politics of prescription. So for example, there's professor Yurum Gunning um who's who's written about the politics and effects of prescription not just in relation to uh to this prescribed organization but others. Um and so what one could do for example one of the reports that's been included is a a submission that was ma was made already um in the past um by professor Yurun Gunning Dr Tristan Dunning, uh, Dr Anas Ektad, Dr Derek Bakuni, Dr Martin Kerr, Professor Hamesh Marshall Stewart, uh, Dr Shannon Brinkad, and Dr Adel Ysef to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the uh, prescription of of Hamas.

That's that's something that people can find quite easily. Um, and it it it makes it makes uh, very interesting arguments. Um and so yeah so th those those are the reports the secretary has been provided and asked to to consider.

Um what consequences exist for the home secretary if she just refuses to consider? So of course we shouldn't we shouldn't um jump the gun. The secretary now has 90 days to consider this application and and we have no doubt that she'll do so um consistent with her uh with her various legal duties.

Um if she dismisses the application, then it will be for the client to consider that decision and and to take legal advice on to whether or not um there is a uh a meritorious appeal of that decision. uh if there is um or if they're advised that there is or they decide that there is then there's a right to appeal that decision to what's called the prescribed organization appeals uh commission um and that commission effectively functions like the high court does in a judicial review. Um and so they'll be able to consider whether or not proper procedure was followed, whether the decision was um reasonable and rational and whether it was lawful or not.

Um um but of course that is uh it's a little bit too presumptuous now to suggest that there's going to be that appeal because the secretary state may well say that these are arguments um that are correct and and deprescribe um Hamas for for whichever of the of the grounds that the application sets out and similarly the secretary of state may well refuse and give very good reasons and and reasons that um the Hamas considers um are persuasive and and will lead them to conclude that they should not appeal. So we we have to we have to be careful to to to jump the gun. It's really for the sector state to consider all these arguments now uh and to to take a considered view of them.

What would you say to any critic who's thinking or says the master's tools can't be used to dismantle the master's house? Um, I I would suggest that they um speak to Bel Hooks and uh and and see what she had to say about it. So, um I don't know if I can say something sensible about that.

Um um normally boys noticed that uh lawyers speak very slowly and I used to think it's because they're charging you by the minute, but you're not charging me for anything. I think the reason you're you've been speaking slowly is because you're very careful with what you're saying. Um my question is what inspired you and gave you the courage to take on this case considering you know the obvious risks.

Um well for me it's it's it's it's very simple. I have expertise um that enabled me to um assist this client with a legal procedure. Uh and while it's an unusual procedure, uh it's it's in in effect no different from from other um public law procedures where I assist clients of all sorts.

Um I have a background in international law um including particularly international humanitarian law uh which features quite heavily in ground one as as we discussed earlier. Um uh and so that combination of of understanding public law and understanding international law um provided me with with the expertise that that this client in this particular case needed and um uh and that's why I um that's why I I I um provided my assistance um to ensure that um the procedure could be followed properly and so the secretary of state could could consider this application um properly. One thing that many people might be thinking is what's next?

Um, what about prescribing the IDF? Well, I I think as I've said repeatedly, that's that's the question for the Secretary of State. CC he does have the discretion uh to do that.

Um the the test for a prescription is whether or not an organization is engaged in terrorism. And the definition of terrorism and that's the application sets that out is so broad it it effectively covers anyone who engages in um political violence. Um and so the the Guardian actually their article today they they they made a bit of a mistake because um they suggested that um uh not only needs to be a a threat of action um but also needs to be designed to influence the government or an international organization or to intimidate the public um and must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing political, religious, racial ideological cause.

But in fact the definition makes it clear that if one uses uh guns and and weapons of the sort um then the need to influence disappears. Um so if one seeks to achieve a political objective and uses uh weapons for it then the definition of terrorist is met. And of course, nobody can deny that uh the uh Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip are seeking to are using force and and guns and and weapons and and are seeking to achieve a political objective.

Um there may be discussions about what that political objective is. Um uh but I don't think anybody can deny that it is a political objective. And so that then immediately means secretary of state has the discretion to to do to do so.

Um but of course as I've repeatedly said how the secretary of state exercises her discretion is is a question for her. The application makes it clear that uh the definition is wide enough indeed to cover uh both Hamas, but it also would cover the Israeli uh forces as it would cover the Ukrainian forces who are using force to try to expel um Russians from their territory, which is a political objective. Um, and so yes, it's, you know, it's a it's a funny rhetoric, but technically the secretary state could could do that.

Um, what consideration she would have to take, I I it's not it's not for me to say, and that would be to say for the for the secretary of state, but it's certainly something that's within her power. Okay. Well, thanks very much for your time.

Maybe we can uh have an updated uh podcast and and conversation once you hear back from the home secretary. Yeah, I I'll be I'll be delighted to um to continue having the conversation. Thank you very much and thank you for watching at home.

If you like this podcast, as usual, give a like and a share and let us know in the comments below what you thought. Until next time.