6 Jun 2026
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2026/06/the-joy-of-resistance/

...

It has been a very embittering time. The Genocide in Gaza is entering a new
phase, and despite the radical shift in international public opinion, those in
charge of states - and not only Western states - still show no genuine intention
to stop it. The Palestinians have been written off already by those in power
over us, erased as a factor. Israel is now simply repeating the Gaza playbook in
South Lebanon. I know the villages and towns they are destroying and in many
cases have been a guest of the people there. The killing and the destruction of
a profound and ancient civilisation is heartbreaking.

I am deeply shocked by the cancellation of the Scottish judicial review of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Until I entered the courtroom on Wednesday
27th, I was not worried.

Well, that is not quite true - I started to worry two days earlier when I found
that although the permission hearing had been in Court No 1 and livestreamed,
this much more substantive hearing would be tucked in Court No 6 and would not
be livestreamed. Why was it being hidden?

I still find it hard to accept that the judge Lord Young who, in January, ruled
in ringing terms that a Scot resident in Scotland, whose liberties were
infringed in Scotland, was entitled to the jurisdiction of a Scottish court, has
now ruled starkly that Scotland must accept the decision of the English Court of
Appeal in the interests of "comity".

...

Let us return to our current Palestine Action case. In January Lord Young ruled
this:
"I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant permission for this judicial
review to proceed in Scotland notwithstanding the existence of English
proceedings which are at a more advanced stage. As a matter of principle, a
petitioner who has standing and whose petition sets out arguments of sufficient
merit to satisfy s27B(2)(b) of the 1988 Act should not be refused permission
because of the existence of parallel proceedings in another UK jurisdiction. The
petitioner claims that his legal rights have been illegally circumscribed by the
2025 Order.
He is entitled to look to the courts of his place of residence for a
determination of that complaint. The cases of Cherry v Advocate General 2020 SC
37 and R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] EWHC 2381 support the petitioner's
argument that there is nothing inherently objectionable with proceedings on the
same issue progressing through different jurisdictions within the UK at the same
time."

How can the same judge in the same case four months later then rule this, which
is the precise opposite?:
"In the current proceedings, the legal costs which will be incurred from now
until the substantive hearing towards the end of June will increase
exponentially. We know that a decision of the [English] Court of Appeal will
have been issued prior to the substantive hearing. While that judgment may, or
may not, be the final word on this issue, the judgments handed down by the Court
of Appeal will be highly significant. It is almost inevitable that the final
decision on the legality of the 2025 Order will be made either by the English
Court of Appeal, or by the Supreme Court on a further appeal in Ammori. The
petitioner's challenge to the 2025 Order in these proceedings is likely to be
resolved, one way or the other, by the final decision in Ammori. It is said that
a sist brings the petitioner's right to have his claim determined to a practical
end. But Ammori will resolve the issue he wants determined"

The judge's volte face was obvious in the courtroom literally in the first five
minutes. His mind was not changed in the courtroom; it had been changed for him
before we ever got to say a word.

His decision is to "sist" or postpone our case until after the English Court of
Appeal case (and any appeal to the Supreme Court) - which means to close down
our case permanently. I was informed by our advocates that because this is a
"procedural" decision to kill our case administratively - thus avoiding an
actual decision on whether the proscription of Palestine Action was legal -
there is no chance of appeal.

I am really not happy to let the sleekit Lord Young get away with this and I
have instructed the legal team to appeal against the sist. Even if leave to
appeal is denied, I think we have to register protest and at least try to resist
- the decision takes Scotland backward from the Cherry/Miller case where
separate judicial reviews did proceed in Scotland and England over the
prorogation of Parliament.

Cherry/Miller was a breakthrough against centuries of Scotland accepting the
decision of English courts which have no jurisdiction here.

What is particularly unjust is that Lord Young stated that the reason for his
ruling is that the Scottish judicial review had not started yet, whereas the
decision of the English Court of Appeal is imminent.

This is infuriating because the Scottish judicial review was scheduled for
March. It has been repeatedly - and deliberately - postponed by the Starmer
regime by the repeated introduction of "secret intelligence" which has resulted
in a number of "closed sessions" with the judge and the security services. We
have no access to those sessions, we are never told what "intelligence" was
given to the judge, and our interests are "represented" by government-approved
barristers who are strictly banned from communicating with us.

It is this UK security service ploy which Lord Young allowed to delay the
Scottish judicial review for months. Then something still more suspicious
happened.

Last week's hearing was originally scheduled for early May. It was then
postponed for three weeks at the request of the Advocate General, a minister in
the Starmer regime, who stated she wished to attend in person and that 27 May
was her earliest available date. We protested, but Lord Young postponed the
hearing to accommodate her.

During that postponement, the English Court of Appeal announced 15 June as the
date they will give their decision in the Ammori case. The existence of that
fixed date is now the peg on which Lord Young hung his ending of our case.

But here is the thing: it was really unusual of the Court of Appeal to announce
a month in advance the date on which they will give their decision in
Ammori. Why would they do that? If they have completed their work, why not give
the judgement now? If they have not completed their work, why tie themselves to
an entirely artificial deadline?

The English Court of Appeal actually asked the lawyers in Ammori about progress
in the Scottish case during that appeal in England. They were very well aware of
where we stood.

Was their date for judgement announced so far in advance in order to give Lord
Young ammunition to torpedo the Scottish case? That seems to me extremely
likely.

We need money to prepare an appeal, and in any event we need money because costs
were awarded against us last week (pegged at 50% of the government's costs). As
lawfare is the government's preferred method, I expect these costs will be
substantial.

If we fail to appeal the sist, we may have a route to intervene when the English
case gets to the Supreme Court. But unless that gives us a right to be heard (as
opposed to just put in a written submission which will be ignored) I am not very
attracted by this.

Given the major constitutional implications of Young's rulings for the operation
of the devolution settlement and the autonomy of Scottish legal system, the lack
of any interest in the case by the Scottish government or by the SNP as a party
- or the Greens or any other political party - has been a further deep
disappointment to me.

The potential result of Lord Young's ruling is that all the work we put into
preparation for the Scottish judicial review which had been granted - hundreds
of hours of work and tens of thousands of pounds of cost - is wasted. I am very
conscious that this is your money from donations. It weighs on me.

One point we wished to raise at judicial review was the fact that the Home
Office consulted nobody in Scotland about the proscription - they did not
consult the Scottish Government, Police Scotland or the Scottish Counter
Terrorism Strategy Board (CONTEST), let alone anybody in Scottish civil
society. But they did consult the Israeli Embassy in London.

When I was taken so ill in Venezuela, family was of course uppermost in my mind,
but something else was bothering me a great deal. If anything happened to me,
the Scottish judicial review would fall. I am the petitioner and the legal team
tell me I can neither be replaced nor can a judicial review case be run by my
estate. No new petition can be raised by anyone else as it is now time-barred.

So I have to keep going.

Another thing that has greatly disappointed me at the moment is NHS Scotland. I
did not have a routine pacemaker implant in Venezuela; it was undertaken as a
part of an emergency procedure. I was kept in hospital for a week, and under
close observation for another, before I was passed fit to fly. The Venezuelan
cardiologist told me that it was essential I see a Scottish cardiologist
immediately on return, and that my pacemaker be checked for attachment and
function after six weeks.

...

After a month of trying I have not had so much as an ECG. I am getting odd pangs
and twinges, sometimes in series, from the pacemaker but have no idea if this is
normal or not. I am continually exhausted and find concentration very
difficult. The function-and-attachment test after six weeks is now overdue.

I therefore felt obliged, against my principles, to book a private cardiologist
appointment. This is deeply disappointing politically, and also very
expensive. Seeing the consultant is £250 - an ECG, ultrasound, X Ray and
pacemaker monitoring (all of which the Venezuelan cardiologist says should be
done) is each charged as extra. So north of £1,000 in all.

I must confess, I had not understood how dysfunctional the NHS had become. I am
told if you actually have a heart attack it is still good; but I would hope we
could provide healthcare before the point of death. It is being hollowed out,
piecemeal-privatised and viewed as an asset to be stripped for profit.

Cont'd