A British rights group has filed a second legal application calling on the UK government to remove the Palestinian resistance group Hamas from a list of proscribed terrorist organisations, reports the Middle East Eye.
Cage International said on Tuesday it had instructed lawyers to appeal the decision in 2021 by former UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to proscribe Hamas in its entirety. The proscription of Hamas predates its current war with Israel in Gaza, where the group has been the de facto authority since winning Palestinian elections in 2006, and the Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel in October 2023.
Hamas’ military wing, the Qassam Brigades, was proscribed by the UK more than two decades ago. But Patel decided to extend the ban to the whole organisation, arguing there was no longer a distinction between the political and military wings of the group.
Proscribing a group as a terrorist organisation automatically creates several criminal offences for anyone who is a group member, who wears or publishes the group’s symbols, expresses or invites support for the group, or organises a meeting to support it.
Section 4 of the UK Terrorism Act allows any person affected by an organisation’s proscription to apply to the home secretary for its de-proscription. Cage, an advocacy group that campaigns on behalf of people affected by counterterrorism policies, is using this clause to lodge its application over concerns its clients, who are mostly British Muslims, have been disproportionately targeted in an “unjust, politically charged manner” as a consequence of Hamas being added to the list of banned organisations.
As part of its submission, Cage included 26 case studies involving clients who, it says, have been adversely impacted by the proscription of Hamas. These cases span a wide range of public and professional settings and highlight what the group describes as the overreach of counterterror legislation.
The case studies include university students and a lecturer investigated and sanctioned for re-sharing publicly available media headlines related to Hamas.
According to Cage, some of its clients also faced the threat of expulsion, visa revocation, or extended disciplinary procedures for allegedly supporting Hamas.
The Middle East Eye report mentions that the Home Office did not respond to its request for comment at the time of writing.
Muhammad Rabbani, managing director of Cage, said the de-proscription of Hamas is “about reckoning with a political and diplomatic reality in addition to remedying the discriminatory application and abuse of power”.
“Our case studies show a consistent pattern of arrests and harassment with unsuccessful prosecution, that left victims with lasting damage,” Rabbani told Middle East Eye.
“Ultimately, the continued proscription of Hamas is violating long-established freedoms enshrined in British law.”
Cage’s application comes months after Hamas launched its own appeal against its proscription in the UK. Legal papers, said the MEE report, revealed that Mousa Abu Marzouk, the head of Hamas’ foreign relations office, had instructed lawyers to take up the case.
Fahad Ansari, the director of Riverway Law, which is leading the challenge; Daniel Grutters, a barrister at One Pump Court Chambers; and Franck Magennis, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers, submitted a 106-page application to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claiming the decision “pursued explicitly political objectives by a politically compromised Secretary of State”.
The lawyers involved in the case stressed that Hamas did not pay them or the experts and lawyers who provided evidence for its submission, as it is illegal to receive funds from a group designated as a terrorist organisation.
The home secretary has 90 days to respond to Hamas and Cage’s applications. As part of her powers as home secretary, Cooper also has the discretion to add or remove any group engaged in armed conflict from the list of proscribed organisations. If the home secretary rejects the application, Hamas could appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, where the decision can be challenged on judicial review grounds.
