

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)
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
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 Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWHC 07 (Admin), [2003] All ER (D) 197 (Jan)
R v Hampshire CC, ex parte Vetterlein [2001] All ER (D) 146 (Jun)
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
PIL has recently been granted funding to bring a case on behalf of a number of Palestinian civilians who have lost their livelihoods as a result of Israeli oppression and, in particular, the building of the Israeli Partition Wall. We intend to argue that the UK is in breach of its own Consolidated Criteria in granting export licences for the sale of weapons to Israel, contrary to the July 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Each client has suffered human rights violations as a result of the construction of the wall and its associated regime including settlement activity which is contingent on the annexation of land for the wall, and the gate/identity card system that prevents agricultural and other workers from reaching their place of employment or agricultural land. These include the annexation or confiscation of land, deprivation of property/possessions and/or loss of livelihood, the destruction of property (including olive trees), demolition of property and homes (including administrative demolitions), damage to their families and communities and inability to access medical help.
We intend to argue that that the UK government should immediately review the legality and rationality of its arms related trading activities with Israel. We submit there is a particular need to review the legality and rationality of its present and continuing policy of these activities in the light of what appears to be a systematic and continuing breach of the UK government’s own Consolidated Criteria. This is in the light of the clear recent evidence that arms related products from UK based companies are implicated in indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as Lebanese civilians. The intensity of the review required now by the UK government must also reflect the clear international obligations it owes, as made clear in the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion.