R (on the application of Dost Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] HWCA 983

Elizabeth Susan Pascoe v the First Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 2356 (Admin)

R (on the application of Dost Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] EWHC 2098 (Admin)

R (on the application of Gentle & Others) v (1) The Prime Minister (2) The Secretary of State for Defence (3) The Attorney General [2006] EWCA Civ 1078

The Queen on the application of Singh v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2006] EWCA Civ 1118

R (Boughton & others) v HM Treasury [2006] EWCA Civ 504

R (on the application of Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda) v the Secretary of State For Defence [2006] EWCA Civ 327

R (on the application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and others) v the Secretary of State for Defence [2005] EWCA Civ 1609

Hereford Waste Watchers Limited v Hereford Council [2005] EWHC 191 (Admin)

John Blewett v Derbyshire Waste Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1508

R (on the application of Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence [2003] All ER (D) 307 (Feb), (2003) Times, 10 March

R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)

R (on the application of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) v Prime Minister and others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 245 (Dec), (2002) Times, 27 December

R (Gurung and others) v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 2463 (Admin), [2002] All ER (D) 409 (Nov), (2002) Times, 28 December

R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] EWCA Civ 03, [2002] All ER (D) 220 (Jan), (2002) Independent, 31 January, CA

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Marchiori [2001] All ER (D) 345, (2001) Times, 1 May, QBD

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2002] 3 WLR 875, [2002] JPL 937 [2002] 05 EG 132 (CS), (2002) Times, 1 February [2002] All ER (D) 149 (Jan), CA

R v Daventry DC, ex parte Thornby Farms [2000] All ER (D) 1102, (2000) Times, 5 October, [2001] EHLR 94

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 5 [2002] 05 EG 131 (CS) 131

R v Derbyshire CC, ex parte Murray, No. 4 [2000] All ER (D) 1300, (2000) Times, 8 November, QBD

R v North Warwicksire CC, ex parte Howe and Jones [2001] All ER (D) 16 (Mar)

R v Leicestershire CC, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothorpe Action Group [2000] JPL 1266

R v Environment Agency, ex parte Turnbull (2000) Env LR 715

R v The Environment Agency ex parte Sellers and Another [1999] Env LR 73-113

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Leam

R v The Environment Agency and Redland Aggregates Ltd ex parte Gibson

Lubrizol Limited v Tyndallwoods, Solicitors (1998) The Lawyer, 24 April 1998, QBD

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) Env LR 719, [1998] JPL 787, CA

R v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Kirkman (1998) ENDS 276, (1998) Env LR 560, QBD

R v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods (1997) JPL 958, (1998) Env LR 277, CA

R v North Somerset District Council and Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Limited ex parte Garnett and Pierssene (1997) JPL 1015, QBD

R v Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Limited ex parte Richard Dixon (1997) JPL 1030, [1997] C.O.D 227, QBD

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Brown [1997] Env LR 100, (1997) JPL 337, QBD

R (on the application of Al-Haq) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Other

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers today read this statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice after issuing proceedings against the British Government on behalf of Al-Haq. Al-Haq are a human rights organization based in the West Bank. It has an impeccable track record on the issue of human rights violations in Gaza, particularly since Israel’s attacks began on 27 December 2008.

It’s position in these proceedings is a simple one:

1. Israel is in flagrant and continuing breach of International Law especially for interfering with the Palestinian right of self-determination, acquiring territory by force and for committing serious breaches of
Geneva Convention principles especially those outlawing indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians.

2. The UK too is in flagrant and continuing breach of International Law. Given Israel’s behaviour in Gaza it should have complied with the following international
obligations: to denounce Israel’s actions; not to recognize as lawful the situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; not to render aid or assistance to Israel; to cooperate with other states using all lawful means to bring Israel’s breaches to an end; and to take all possible steps to ensure that Israel respects its

obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

3. In fact not only has the UK not met it’s obligations not to render aid or assistance and not to recognise the illegal situation it appears to have positively assisted Israel in it’s action in Gaza. Three
examples make the point: one) it has continued it’s arms trading with Israel and in fact in the first quarter of 2008 approved a record amount of UK arms exports to Israel; two) even though it is a key member of the EU it has done nothing to push for the effective suspension of the preferential trading agreement between the EU and Israel
even though this agreement is underpinned by an obligation that Israel must respect Human Rights; three) despite the UK’s Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council, its membership of the G8 Group and of the Convention for the High Contracting Parties for the Geneva Conventions, and its status within the EU and Quartet it has done nothing to censor or sanction effectively Israel for it’s actions in Gaza.

4. The UK now has urgent international obligations that it must fulfill immediately bearing in mind the huge and disproportionate civilian casualties, and that these casualties continue. Bearing in mind these international obligations Al-Haq calls publicly for the UK Government through this legal action to do all of the following:

a. To denounce publicly Israel’s actions in Gaza and in connection with the continuing construction of the wall.
b. To suspend with immediate effect it’s arms related export licensing approval system so that no more UK companies can export arms related products until Israel complies with its human rights obligations.
c. To insist that the EU suspend the preferential trading agreement with Israel until it demonstrates full respect for it’s human rights obligations.
d. To suspend all UK Government financial, military or ministerial assistance either directly to Israel or to UK companies exporting military technology or goods to Israel.
e. To place before the police any evidence of war crimes committed by Israel’s agents intending to enter UK jurisdiction.

It is Al-Haq’s position that if the UK were to meet it’s international obligations now Palestinian lives and limbs in Gaza would be saved, and there would be a much greater chance of accountability for Israel’s actions and a change in the policies of all key players so that nothing like it can ever again befall the Palestinian people.