Judge Removed from Palestine Action Trial, Raising Concerns Over Judicial Independence
A High Court judge has been unexpectedly removed from the upcoming trial challenging the UK government’s ban on Palestine Action, prompting concerns about judicial transparency and independence. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who had been set to oversee the case, was replaced just days before the hearing was scheduled to begin. No official reason was given for the sudden change, leaving legal experts and activists alarmed.
The case is widely followed due to its implications for civil liberties and protest rights. It questions the government’s decision to classify the activist group as “terrorists,” and the last-minute judicial switch has raised doubts about the transparency of court processes. Mr Justice Chamberlain had previously granted permission for the judicial review and was familiar with the complex legal arguments, making his removal at such a late stage particularly disruptive, according to legal analysts.
Chamberlain will be replaced by a panel of three senior judges: Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Steyn, and Mr Justice Swift. Both the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary’s press office declined to comment, a silence that is highly unusual in a case of such public interest. Human rights lawyers and campaigners have expressed alarm, warning that backroom decisions in politically sensitive trials could undermine confidence in judicial independence. A spokesperson for Defend Our Jerseys stressed that justice must be seen to be done and that unexplained interventions erode public trust.
This is not the first time Mr Justice Chamberlain has been replaced in a Palestine-related case. Earlier this year, he was removed from a judicial review regarding UK arms sales to Israel, a pattern that has intensified scrutiny of judicial appointments in high-profile political cases. The Palestine Action trial affects over 2,350 individuals, many of whom face criminal charges for peaceful protest, including holding signs opposing the ban. Observers note that the outcome of this case will have broader implications for defining terrorism in the context of modern protest movements and safeguarding civil liberties in the UK.
Campaign Against Arms Trade echoed these concerns, with its media coordinator calling the situation “deeply alarming” and urging a public explanation for the judicial change. The unexplained removal of a judge at such a critical stage has created a crisis of confidence, placing added pressure on the court to demonstrate the integrity of the UK legal system.
