Government arms embargo on Israel faces legal challenge

UK Lawyers for Israel warns ministers it is ready to apply for a judicial review

Sir Keir Starmer is facing a legal challenge over the Government’s decision to impose an embargo on some arms exports to Israel.
UK Lawyers for Israel has warned ministers it is ready to apply for a judicial review to quash the move, which it says was “made improperly”.
It comes after David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, announced to Parliament that he was suspending around 30 arms export licences for Israel.
The decision has prompted a significant backlash, including from Labour MPs who said it had made many Jewish voters “upset and angry”.
UK Lawyers for Israel has now written to the Government warning that it is ready to challenge the legal basis for the announcement.
Arms exports should only be stopped if it can be demonstrated the weapons are going to be used in violation of international humanitarian law.
Separately, Lord Howard, the former Conservative leader, has written to Sir Keir Starmer accusing Baroness Chapman, a Foreign Office minister, of misleading Parliament by claiming that the Government was “required to suspend certain export licences”.
The peer said the statement in the House of Lords on Tuesday was “factually incorrect and grossly misleading” because “commitment to comply with international humanitarian law is not the only criterion in making export-licensing decisions”.
Lord Howard told the Prime Minister that Baroness Chapman’s remarks were a resignation-worthy breach of the ministerial code and should be corrected.
Announcing the decision to suspend a number of export licences last Monday, Mr Lammy said it would cover “equipment that we assess is for use in the current conflict in Gaza”.
He said this affected “important components which go into military aircraft including fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items which facilitate ground targeting”.
But the Foreign Secretary only referenced two specific justifications for the determination that Israel is in breach of humanitarian law.
One was the accusation that it is failing to ensure enough aid is getting into Gaza and the other was its alleged mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners.
UK Lawyers for Israel said both of those reasons had “nothing to do with” how the arms subject to the embargo might be used.
Mr Lammy admitted that “in many cases it has not been possible to reach a determinative conclusion on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of hostilities”.
In a letter to Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, UK Lawyers for Israel said the reasons given for the decision did not “reflect the statutory requirements”.
“It appears that the decision has been taken outside of the legislative framework governing export control and was therefore illegal and/or irrational,” the group wrote.
“The UK’s statutory export controls regime sets down clear and circumscribed requirements for when an export ban on specific items is justified.
“It does not permit export bans based on political considerations, and nor does it permit bans based on factors which bear no relation to the use of the items concerned.
“Through its decision, the UK appears to have contravened both such principles.”
Even though the embargo was announced by Mr Lammy it is Mr Reynold’s department that is responsible for granting arms export licences.
UK Lawyers for Israel sent its “letter before claim” to the Business Secretary on Friday.
Ministers have a two-week deadline to satisfactorily explain their decision, or the group will apply for a judicial review that could annul it.
In such a situation a High Court judge would then rule on whether the way in which the Government made the decision was legal.
Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel, said: “Many people are appalled by the Government’s decision to suspend existing licences for arms sales to Israel as it fights ruthless, genocidal enemies on multiple fronts.
“However, the decision appears to us to be unlawful. The Government is supposed to decide whether there is a clear risk that the items supplied might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
“But the grounds it has given for the decision are that Israel has allegedly not done as much as it could to provide humanitarian supplies and that there are allegations – which the Israeli authorities are investigating – of mistreatment of some Palestinian detainees. These have nothing to do with how the arms are used.
“The reality appears to be that the decision was taken on political grounds, which the law simply does not allow.
“We have therefore written to the minister stating our intention to challenge the decision in court unless we receive a satisfactory response.”
A spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “We will consider this letter when we receive it but we do not comment on the potential for future legal proceedings.”
It comes after three London Labour MPs, including the Solicitor General, who is one of the Government’s top legal advisers, criticised the arms embargo.
In a letter to Mr Lammy they said constituents had “raised questions about the message that the decision sends to Israel’s enemies, including Hamas, Iran and Iran’s proxies”.
The three signatories were Sarah Sackman, the Solicitor General, and backbenchers David Pinto-Duschinsky and Dan Tomlinson.