International Centre of Justice for Palestinians

In April 2025, ICJP along with the [[Hind Rajab Foundation]] and Global Legal Action Network wrote to the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|UK attorney general]] to apply for an arrest warrant for [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel)|Israeli Foreign Minister]] [[Gideon Sa'ar]].{{Cite web|url=https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/uk-attorney-general-foreign-secretary-shield-israeli-foreign-minister-from-arrest-during-london-vi|title=UK Attorney General & Foreign Secretary shield Israeli Foreign Minister from arrest during London visit|access-date=18 April 2025}} This came after Sa'ar met with [[Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom)|UK Foreign Secretary]] [[David Lammy]] in London. The request claims that Sa'ar is responsible for the [[Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges|attack on Kamal Adwan hospital]] and the detention of [[Hussam Abu Safiya]].{{cite web |last1=Mulla |first1=Imran |title=Arrest warrant sought for Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar on visit to UK |url=https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/arrest-warrant-sought-israeli-foreign-minister-visit-britain |website=Middle East Eye |access-date=16 April 2025}}{{cite web |last1=Borger |first1=Julian |title=Israeli minister met David Lammy on ‘private’ visit to UK, Foreign Office says |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/16/israeli-foreign-minister-david-lammy-uk-foreign-office |website=The Guardian |access-date=16 April 2025}} The British attorney general rejected the request.{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/british-ag-rejects-request-by-pro-palestinian-groups-to-arrest-saar/|title=British AG rejects request by pro-Palestinian groups to arrest Sa’ar|date=17 April 2025|access-date=18 April 2025|website=Times of Israel}}

In April 2025, ICJP along with the [[Hind Rajab Foundation]] and Global Legal Action Network wrote to the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|UK attorney general]] to apply for an arrest warrant for [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel)|Israeli Foreign Minister]] [[Gideon Sa'ar]].{{Cite web|url=https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/uk-attorney-general-foreign-secretary-shield-israeli-foreign-minister-from-arrest-during-london-vi|title=UK Attorney General & Foreign Secretary shield Israeli Foreign Minister from arrest during London visit|access-date=18 April 2025}} This came after Sa'ar met with [[Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom)|UK Foreign Secretary]] [[David Lammy]] in London. The request claims that Sa'ar is responsible for the [[Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges|attack on Kamal Adwan hospital]] and the detention of [[Hussam Abu Safiya]].{{cite web |last1=Mulla |first1=Imran |title=Arrest warrant sought for Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar on visit to UK |url=https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/arrest-warrant-sought-israeli-foreign-minister-visit-britain |website=Middle East Eye |access-date=16 April 2025}}{{cite web |last1=Borger |first1=Julian |title=Israeli minister met David Lammy on ‘private’ visit to UK, Foreign Office says |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/16/israeli-foreign-minister-david-lammy-uk-foreign-office |website=The Guardian |access-date=16 April 2025}} The British attorney general rejected the request.{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/british-ag-rejects-request-by-pro-palestinian-groups-to-arrest-saar/|title=British AG rejects request by pro-Palestinian groups to arrest Sa’ar|date=17 April 2025|access-date=18 April 2025|website=Times of Israel}}

== Private prosecution against dual British-Israeli national ==

== Controversy ==

In March 2026, the ICJP brought a private prosecution at [[Westminster Magistrates' Court]] against a dual British-Israeli national who had returned to Israel to serve as an IDF reservist following the [[Hamas]]-led [[October 7 attacks]] on Israel, invoking the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, a Victorian statute aimed at preventing British nationals from serving as foreign mercenaries. The ICJP argued that the Act's reference to "British subjects" included all [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] citizens, a reading that would have brought nationals of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] within its criminal scope. The group claimed to have compiled evidence against more than ten British nationals in connection with IDF service.{{Cite web |last=Sawer |first=Patrick |date=18 April 2026 |title=Judge dismisses pro-Palestine prosecution of British-Israeli soldier |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/18/judge-pro-palestine-prosecution-of-british-israeli-soldier/ |access-date=2026-04-20 |website=The Daily Telegraph}}

In March 2026, the ICJP brought a private prosecution at [[Westminster Magistrates' Court]] against a dual British-Israeli national who had returned to Israel to serve as an IDF reservist following the [[Hamas]]-led [[October 7 attacks]] on Israel, invoking the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, a Victorian statute aimed at preventing British nationals from serving as foreign mercenaries. The ICJP argued that the Act's reference to "British subjects" included all [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] citizens, a reading that would have brought nationals of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] within its criminal scope. The group claimed to have compiled evidence against more than ten British nationals in connection with IDF service.{{Cite web |last=Sawer |first=Patrick |date=18 April 2026 |title=Judge dismisses pro-Palestine prosecution of British-Israeli soldier |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/18/judge-pro-palestine-prosecution-of-british-israeli-soldier/ |access-date=2026-04-20 |website=The Daily Telegraph}}

Judgment was delivered in April 2026 by Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, who dismissed the application in its entirety. He found it "legally flawed evidentially deficient and procedurally defective," and concluded that the prosecution's animating purpose was the advancement of a political and ideological agenda, rendering it an abuse of the court's process. The court also confirmed the longstanding position of successive UK governments that the Act does not apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of their other country of nationality, a position the judge found the ICJP had failed to accurately represent in its submissions.

Judgment was delivered in April 2026 by Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, who dismissed the application in its entirety. He found it "legally flawed evidentially deficient and procedurally defective," and concluded that the prosecution's animating purpose was the "advancement of a political and ideological agenda", describing it as an abuse of the court's process. The court also confirmed the longstanding position of successive UK governments that the Act does not apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of their other country of nationality, a position the judge found the ICJP had failed to accurately represent in its submissions.

The judge also identified serious breaches of the duty of candour owned by private prosecutors to the court. The ICJP had not disclosed that the senior partner of its instructed law firm, [[Bindmans LLP]], held a directorship within the organisation, nor that the firm's founder had sat on the ICJP's advisory board. The retained expert witness was fond to lack the independence required of that role, given her documented activism in support of the prosecution's objectives. The ICJP stated it regarded the underlying legal question as unresolved and indicated it would pursue accountability through other means.

The judge also identified serious breaches of the duty of candour owned by private prosecutors to the court. The ICJP had not disclosed that the senior partner of its instructed law firm, [[Bindmans LLP]], held a directorship within the organisation, nor that the firm's founder had sat on the ICJP's advisory board. The retained expert witness was found to lack the independence required of that role, given her documented activism in support of the prosecution's objectives. The ICJP described the prosecution as a test case to determine whether UK law could "be used to ensure accountability where individuals participate in foreign military activity in circumstances that raise serious legal and ethical concerns". It said that it regarded the underlying legal question as unresolved and indicated it would "pursue accountability through lawful and appropriate means".

==References==

==References==