The UK Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW) of a 2014 motion passed by Leicester City Council boycotting goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Leicester city councillors voted in 2014 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’. JHRW, a Jewish campaign group formed in 2015, sought judicial review of the Council’s decision on the basis that it failed to meet the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010 by failing to consider the effect the motion might have on rising anti-Semitism in the UK.
The group was particularly concerned that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, of which it claimed the Council’s motion was a part, has a negative impact on community relations between Jews and non-Jews in the UK.
The UK High Court dismissed JHRW’s case in 2016 on the basis that there had been no breach of the PSED, a decision which the group appealed to the Court of Appeal this year. Despite reaching the same conclusion, Lord Justice Sales departed somewhat from the reasoning in the High Court and held that, although the resolution was non-binding on the Council and could not have any substantive effect on the Council’s procurement functions, resolutions passed by the Council were still subject to the PSED.
Justice Sales, however, held that the PSED had been discharged in the passing of the resolution by the councillors who had shown the necessary “due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation... and to the need to foster good relations between the Jewish community and others”. Justice Sales pointed to an amendment to the motion tabled at the outset of the Council’s debate referring to good community relationships and the promotion of harmony and respect.
The Judge further observed that the resolution respected the right of the State of Israel to exist and that its condemnation of certain actions on the part of the Israeli Government was in line with the views of the UK Government, the UN General Assembly, the EU and the International Court of Justice. He held that the criticism of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank was “temperate and legitimate” and that such criticism did not equate to anti-Semitism. The views of councillors who did not agree with the motion were held to have been respectfully acknowledged in the debate.
Justice Sales rejected an argument put forward by the Council that no regard need be had to the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 in the passing of such resolutions as it would constitute an infringement of political free speech. The Judge held that councillors passing such resolutions were still aware of the potential impact on community relations and therefore regard must be had to the PSED. Their individual rights of political free speech were not affected by the PSED of the Council as a whole.
Since the Council passed the motion in question, the UK Government in 2016 published a Procurement Policy Note (PPN) stating that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate unless formal legal sanctions have been put in place by the UK Government.
In Ireland, the Seanad has recently passed the Occupied Territories (Settlement Goods) Bill 2018 boycotting imports from illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. The bill, which has significant support but is opposed by the Government, will now progress to Committee Stage.
Click here for the judgement in Jewish Human Rights Watch v Leicester City Council.