Rights group should be allowed to challenge jet parts export ruling, judges told

Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq should be allowed to challenge the High Court’s dismissal of its legal bid over fighter jet part exports, appeal judges have heard.

Al-Haq previously challenged the Department for Business and Trade’s decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, claiming it was unlawful and “gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime”.

In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict.

But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme.

Al-Haq challenged this at the High Court, including by arguing that this “carve-out” put the UK in breach of international obligations.

The challenge was dismissed by two judges in June.

Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) announced in August that it would seek to appeal against the decision and at a hearing on Thursday, lawyers on behalf of Al-Haq made a bid to bring their appeal.

Phillippa Kaufmann KC, for Al-Haq, said in written submissions that the Department for Business and Trade had not made proper attempts to understand what the risks of exporting the parts are compared with the risks of suspending the F-35 programme.

Ms Kaufmann said there would be a “potentially decisive difference” between a limited risk of exported items being used to commit “serious but nevertheless isolated violations” of international law, compared with “a strong likelihood of the items being used to commit or facilitate widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity, or indeed acts of genocide, affecting the entire Palestinian population in Gaza”.

The appeal was also told that decisions around the “carve-out” are within the UK’s jurisdiction.

Zac Sammour, also for the human rights organisation, told judges in London: “The decision that is under challenge here, the F-35 carve-out is not a decision that relates to a failure by the United Kingdom to take some step outside of its jurisdiction with regard to Israel or any other state.

“It is a decision taken by somebody in London with respect to weapons in the United Kingdom which concerns the question of whether or not weapons in the United Kingdom will be sent outside.”

The Home Office opposes the bid for an appeal, saying in written submissions that none of the arguments has “any real prospect of success”.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, continued in written submissions: “The issues before the court were dealt with comprehensively and there is a need for finality.”

The barrister added that none of the alternative reasons Al-Haq had presented for allowing the appeal to go ahead “comes close to demonstrating ‘compelling reasons’”.

Sir James continued: “The fact that matters of broader public interest may be engaged is insufficient.”

The hearing before Lady Justice King, Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Dingemans is due to conclude on Thursday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.