Saturday Nov 23, 2024
Saturday Nov 23, 2024
Monday, 24 June 2024 02:45 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The UK Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission on Friday dismissed an appeal from the Transitional Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) to lift the UK’s designation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as a terrorist organisation. This decision was made in response to the case Arumugam and Others vs. the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The TGTE argued that it should not be proscribed in the UK, emphasising its commitment to achieving its political and ideological goals through non-violent means. The TGTE advocates for the establishment of an independent Tamil state in the north-east of Sri Lanka.
On 29 March 2001, the UK Secretary of State at the time included the LTTE in the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001. Previous efforts to de-proscribe the LTTE include a 7 December 2018 application by the TGTE to the Home Department, requesting the removal of the LTTE from Schedule 2 under Section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
After a review process involving assessments from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and the Centre for the Analysis and Assessment of Domestic and International Terrorism Threats, the Secretary of State denied the application on 8 March 2019. On 21 October 2020, the Appeals Commission allowed the appellants’ appeal. Consequently, an order dated 13 May 2021, required the TGTE to provide further representations for de-proscription by 3 June 2021 and mandated the Secretary of State to decide on the application by 31 August 2021.
After considering the judgement, the Secretary of State decided to uphold the ban on the LTTE, notifying the TGTE on 31 August 2021. The TGTE filed an appeal against this decision on 12 October 2021. Another subsequent application for de-proscription was also denied by the Secretary of State.
The TGTE’s grounds for appeal included arguments that the LTTE is no longer a viable organisation for proscription, that there were no reasonable grounds for the Secretary of State’s belief that the LTTE is involved in terrorism, that the Secretary of State misused her discretion in maintaining the proscription, and that the ongoing proscription unjustifiably infringes on the TGTE’s rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association.
The Appeals Commission rejected the appeal, ruling that the proscription of the LTTE in the UK should continue. Representing the appellants were Peter Haynes KC and Shanthi Sivakumaran, instructed by the Public Law Interest Centre. Representing the Secretary of State were Ben Watson KC, Andrew Deakin, and Will Hays, instructed by the Government Legal Department, with Tom Forster KC and Rachel Toney serving as Special Advocates, supported by the Special Advocates’ Support Office.
