Councils defeat judicial review challenge to Israeli settlement motions

Three councils have successfully defended a High Court judicial review challenge brought by Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW) over motions passed in relation to the authorities' business dealings and Israeli settlements.

JHRW had argued that the motions passed at Swansea, Gwynedd and Leicester were discriminatory and in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and procurement laws. It has already announced that it intends to appeal the High Court ruling handed down by Lord Justice Simon and Mr Justice Flaux.

The motions at the centre of the case were:

1. Swansea: on 17 June 2010 the council approved the following motion: “The UN not only does not recognise Israel’s annexation and occupation of East Jerusalem, but has repeatedly stated its view that the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank contravene international law, and it has demanded that Israeli settlement activities and occupation should not be supported. The international trading company, Veolia, is a leading partner in a consortium seeking to build a light railway system linking Israel to illegal settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, a project that clearly not only contravenes UN demands but is in contravention of international law. This Council therefore (1) Notes with regret that Veolia is involved in (or will be seeking) contracts with the City & County of Swansea…(2) Calls on the Leader & Chief Executive to support the position of the UN in regards to the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, so long as to do so would not be in breach of any relevant legislation….(3) And asks the Leader & Chief Executive to note that Council does not wish to do business with any company in breach of international law or UN obligations or demands, so long as to do so would not be in breach of any relevant legislation.”

2. Gwynedd: On 9 October 2014 the council passed this motion: “Following the latest attacks by the Israeli State on the territory of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, this Council calls for a trade embargo with Israel and condemns the over-reaction and savageness used. Furthermore, we confirm and underline this Council’s decision to stop investing in Israel or in that country’s establishments. We believe that if Gwynedd leads the way there is hope that other councils in Wales and beyond will follow our example.” It was emphasised during the debate that the proposed motion condemned the Israeli State and not the Jewish religion.

3. Leicester: on 13 November 2014 Leicester City Council resolved “insofar as legal considerations allow, to boycott any produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank until such time as it complies with international law and withdraws from Palestinian Occupied territories”. The council insisted that the motion had never been a boycott of Israel by Leicester. “The motion relates specifically to the council’s procurement policy and produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank,” a spokesman said in August 2015.

A spokesman for Swansea Council said: “The decision today is a victory for freedom of expression and the rights of elected councillors to debate and speak about issues of public interest through notices of motion.

“We have stressed throughout this process – and we do so again today – that the Notice of Motion of June 17, 2010, was not and has never been anti-Semitic or an attack on Jewish people. That was never our intention. The council has never boycotted Israeli goods and has no intention of doing so.”

The Swansea spokesman added: “It was a difficult decision to go to court on this matter. However, given that this was an issue about the democratic rights of councillors to speak on matters of public interest, we believed there was no other option than to defend that fundamental right in court.”

The judgment has not yet been published but Leicester City Council said the judges had concluded that the moving of a council resolution was not the same as making policy, and therefore did not trigger the public equality duty.

Leicester said the judges also ruled that although there was no legal requirement on it to do so, the city council did in fact give due regard to this duty as part of the debate before the motion was passed.

Lord Justice Simon is said to have concluded: “The evidence is clear: the council resolutions did not override, or even affect, the lawful exercise of its public functions in relation to public supply or works contracts, and no contracts or potential contracts were affected by the resolutions.”

Leicester’s City Mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby said: “This judgement confirms that councillors have the right to shine a spotlight on a legitimate area of public debate and to discuss issues that are of concern to their electorate."

JHRW, which has been ordered to pay all of the legal costs incurred by the three councils, has issued a statement confirming it planned to appeal the High Court ruling.

The organisation described the judgment as “regrettable” and “a setback in the fight against prejudice – and not just for Jewish communities”.

It added: “This disappointing ruling has failed to grasp the power of words to incite hatred towards minorities by weak politicians exploiting and intensifying division. This is a sad day for equality in our country….

“Jewish Human Rights Watch intends to make a formal application in order to appeal this decision, which flies in the fact of what Parliament intended in legislation for fair treatment and community cohesion – not just for the Jewish community but for all minorities in our country.”