Concerns have escalated following the unexpected removal of Mr Justice Chamberlain from the legal challenge against the ban on Palestine Action. Chamberlain had previously granted permission for a judicial review and was set to preside over the trial, which is scheduled to start on December 6, 2023. Instead, a panel of three different judges will now hear the case, raising significant questions about the integrity of the judicial process.
The last-minute substitution of judges is unusual, particularly given that Chamberlain had been the designated judge as recently as last Wednesday. This is not the first instance of his removal from a high-profile case; he was also replaced earlier this year during the judicial review concerning the UK’s sale of F-35 aircraft parts to Israel, which he had initially approved.
When approached for clarification on Chamberlain’s removal, the Ministry of Justice referred inquiries to the judiciary press office, which declined to comment.
Tayab Ali, a partner at Bindmans law firm, expressed his alarm at the abrupt change. He stated, “A sudden and unexplained shift from the single judge who already had conduct of the case to an entirely new panel of three is deeply concerning, particularly without any stated justification. In a matter as sensitive as this, involving allegations linked to Palestine and public-interest activism of significant constitutional importance, the integrity and transparency of the judicial process must be beyond question.”
The chief magistrate, Paul Goldspring, has indicated that Chamberlain anticipated rendering a decision by Christmas. Despite the change in judges, Chamberlain continued to oversee application hearings related to the judicial review earlier this week. The three judges now assigned to the case are the president of the High Court’s King’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Steyn, and Mr Justice Swift.
A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, an organization that has organized protests against the proscription of Palestine Action, highlighted the respect Chamberlain commands for his fairness and independence. They noted that he had consistently been confirmed as the judge for this judicial review in court documents, correspondence, and in related criminal hearings involving peaceful protesters.
“If Dame Sharp believed a panel of judges was necessary, the usual process would have been to add judges to sit alongside him, not to remove Chamberlain entirely,” the spokesperson argued. “This is particularly significant given that he is one of the most senior judges on the High Court bench, which undermines any justification based on seniority.”
The case has implications for a large number of peaceful protesters—over 2,350 individuals—who could continue to be classified as “terrorists” for expressing their views on cardboard signs. The demand for transparency in the judicial process is paramount, according to advocates who believe that the public deserves to understand the reasons behind such a critical judicial change.
In the earlier F-35 exports judicial review, Chamberlain was replaced by Steyn and Lord Justice Males, who ultimately upheld the legality of the UK’s decision to export components to Israel. They acknowledged that these components might be used in violation of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
Emily Apple, media coordinator for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, described Chamberlain’s removal from the Palestine Action case as “deeply alarming.” She urged the court to provide clarity on the situation, asserting, “This raises serious questions around the lack of impartiality and transparency in our judicial system, and whether this is now a pattern in significant legal cases concerning Palestine.”
As the legal landscape surrounding Palestine Action continues to evolve, the implications of these judicial changes remain a focal point of concern for many stakeholders involved in activism and legal advocacy.
