“Palestinian militant group Hamas has enlisted British lawyers to challenge its terrorist designation, arguing the label was a politically driven move orchestrated by former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel.”
Hamas Sparks Outrage with Legal Bid to Overturn Terrorist Label
Hamas has ignited controversy by launching legal action to overturn its classification as a terrorist organization. The Palestinian militant group has hired British lawyers to contest the ban, claiming it was a politically motivated decision made by former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel.
Critics have slammed Hamas as a “despicable terrorist organization” accused of kidnapping, torturing, and murdering victims — including British nationals. They insist the group’s legal challenge should be thrown out, calling it a blatant attempt to whitewash violent extremism.
Riverway Law, an immigration law firm based in Streatham, south London, has confirmed it has initiated legal proceedings against the Home Office. In a statement released Wednesday, the firm said:
“Today, Fahad Ansari of Riverway Law launches an important legal application to Yvette Cooper MP to end the ban on the organisation Harakat al-Muqawwamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas).”
Fierce Backlash as UK Politicians Condemn Hamas Legal Challenge
Senior UK politicians have launched a blistering response to Hamas’s legal attempt to overturn its proscription as a terrorist group, branding the move “dangerous,” “absurd,” and “offensive.”
Dame Priti Patel, the former Home Secretary who initially oversaw the designation, was unequivocal:
“Hamas is an evil, Iranian-backed terrorist organisation, which kidnaps, tortures and murders people — including British nationals.
They pose an ongoing threat to our security, to peace in the Middle East, and maintain weapons and training facilities that endanger countless lives. They have oppressed people in Gaza for far too long, showing no regard for human rights, dignity, or life itself.”
She continued:
“Those campaigning to end the proscription fail to grasp the deadly seriousness of Hamas’s threat. Eighteen months ago, they carried out the worst terror attack in Israel’s history — the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. They still hold 59 innocent hostages. No one should be under any illusions about Hamas’s true intentions.”
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp echoed her outrage:
“Hamas is a despicable terrorist group responsible for mass murder, rape, and the kidnapping of innocent children, women, and men on October 7, 2023.
They have carried out numerous atrocities while brutally oppressing the people of Gaza. Their proscription must remain in place — this legal claim is outrageous and should be thrown out.”
Philp also criticized the legal basis for the challenge:
“The idea that our weak human rights laws could be twisted to protect murderous terrorists shows why reform is long overdue. These laws should shield our citizens, not foreign criminals or terrorists.”
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick added:
“Just over a year ago, Hamas committed the largest mass killing of Jewish people since the Holocaust. They still refuse to release 59 hostages.
It’s sickening that a UK law firm believes there’s any case for lifting the ban — especially one that specializes in immigration.”
Dr. Paul Stott, Head of Security and Extremism at Policy Exchange, was scathing:
“It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this news. Just 18 months ago we saw civilians being gunned down in the streets and abducted from a music festival — not even babies or pensioners were spared.
Given the strain on our legal system, this nonsense should be tossed straight into the bin.”
Announcing the legal challenge, Riverway Law declared:
“The right to resist occupation, apartheid, and genocide is firmly rooted in international law.”
“Like them or loathe them, Hamas represents the face of Palestinian resistance.
By banning the group, Britain is effectively denying Palestinians the right to defend themselves against extermination.”
Background to the Ban and Hamas’s Legal Argument
In 2021, then-Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel defended the UK government’s decision to proscribe Hamas in its entirety, arguing it was impossible to distinguish between the group’s political and military wings. She described Hamas as “fundamentally and rabidly antisemitic,” stating the ban was necessary to protect the Jewish community in Britain.
In its recent legal submission, Hamas acknowledged that its activities fall under the broad scope of terrorism as defined by the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000. However, it challenged the application of that definition, stating:
“Hamas does not deny that its actions fall within the wide definition of ‘terrorism’ under the Terrorism Act 2000. Instead, it notes that the definition also covers all groups and organisations around the world that use violence to achieve political objectives — including the Israeli armed forces, the Ukrainian army, and indeed, the British armed forces.”
The group further argued that the decision to proscribe any organization is ultimately a matter of political discretion:
“Of course, not all such groups are proscribed, as ultimately that is a question of discretion for the Secretary of State. … Transition to a political process is hindered by the terrorism label, as talking with terrorists is a taboo.”