International Centre of Justice for Palestinians v A, 8 April 2026
Summary
Court: Westminster Magistrates’ Court Judge: Senior District Judge Goldspring (Chief Magistrate) Date of ruling: 8 April 2026 Outcome: Application REFUSED
The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) applied for a summons to begin a private prosecution of ‘A’, an anonymised dual British-Israeli national, under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (FEA). ICJP alleged that A unlawfully enlisted in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) on or about 8 October 2023. It was ICJP’s first private prosecution, and the first attempt to use this Victorian statute in modern times.
The legal test
Under authorities including Kay, Sunderland and Klahn, a magistrate must consider whether the offence is known to law, whether its essential ingredients are prima facie present, whether the court has jurisdiction and the allegation is in time, and whether the informant has authority. Even where those conditions are met, the court can refuse where the application is vexatious, an abuse of process, or otherwise improper — and where the prosecutor has breached the duty of candour owed to the court.
Why the application was refused
The Chief Magistrate gave multiple, independent reasons, any one of which would have been sufficient.
1. Legally misconceived. The FEA was designed to stop British nationals acting as mercenaries and to safeguard British neutrality. It draws a binary line between “British subjects” and “foreign subjects” and does not sensibly apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of their other country of nationality. ICJP’s reliance on s.51 of the British Nationality Act 1981 was rejected: s.51(5)(a) disapplies that reading where “the context otherwise requires”, and the opposite reading would absurdly criminalise, e.g., Indian or Cypriot Commonwealth citizens enlisting in their own national armies — an extraterritorial overreach forbidden by R (Marouf) v SSHD.
2. No “enlistment” on the alleged date. Section 4 criminalises enlistment, not continuing service. A was already an IDF reservist before October 2023. On 8 October 2023 he merely reported for duty under a pre-existing liability imposed by Israeli law — he did not “accept or agree to accept” any new commission.
3. No “state of war” in the legal sense. Whether a state of war exists is a matter reserved to the Executive (Amin v Brown). There was no Foreign Secretary’s certificate or equivalent recognising a formal state of war between Israel and any friendly state. Colloquial or rhetorical use of “war” does not suffice. The recent UK recognition of Palestinian statehood (21 September 2025) cannot retrospectively transform the legal character of earlier conduct. The conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon are, in substance, with Hamas and Hezbollah — proscribed terrorist organisations with whom the UK cannot be “at peace” in any meaningful sense.
4. License of the Crown. Successive UK Governments (2014, December 2023, January 2024, April 2024, June 2025) have repeatedly and consistently stated that the FEA does not apply to British dual nationals serving in the IDF. The Judge held those statements amount to the functional equivalent of a license from the Crown — a complete answer to the charge on its own.
5. Evidentially hollow. The applicant relied on open-source material (e.g. photographs said to show a British passport) rather than admissible evidence; there was no admissible proof of British citizenship, no evidence of fresh enlistment during the alleged period, and no evidence of a legal state of war.
6. Profound breaches of the duty of candour. A private prosecutor is a “Minister for Justice” and must disclose anything that might militate against the grant of a summons (Kay). ICJP failed to put before the court: the repeated UK Government statements; the CPS prosecution guidance reflecting that position; its own earlier June 2022 referral of essentially the same issue to the Metropolitan Police’s SO15; the close institutional ties between ICJP and its solicitors Bindmans LLP (Deputy Managing Partner Tayab Ali is a director of ICJP; the late Sir Geoffrey Bindman sat on ICJP’s Advisory Board); and the lack of independence of its purported expert, Dr Mandy Turner, who was in an ICJP WhatsApp group and whose report was described as containing demonstrable factual errors, pejorative terminology (“IOF” for IDF), and content “more akin to propaganda than independent analysis.”
7. Non-justiciability (Al-Haq). Even if the legal test were otherwise met, determining whether Israel was “at war” with Palestine, Lebanon or Syria, or whether Palestine was a “state” under s.30 of the FEA, would require the court to adjudicate on matters of foreign relations, recognition, and international conflict classification — territory reserved to the Executive under the Foreign Act of State doctrine and the “one-voice” principle reaffirmed in Al-Haq, Belhaj and Maduro Board. The Judge quoted Lord Diplock’s 1976 observation that the FEA is “out of date and obscure… unworkable in practice and should be repealed.”
8. Abuse of process / improper motive. The Judge found the dominant motive was not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act but the advancement of a political and ideological agenda — using the criminal court as a platform for political posturing and to attack the UK Government’s stated policy on dual-national service in the IDF. The application also sought to circumvent safeguards such as the DPP consent requirement for universal-jurisdiction arrest warrants (introduced by s.153 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011). Brought together with the candour breaches and partisan expert evidence, the proceedings were “truly oppressive” and vexatious.
9. Procedural impracticability. A is in Israel. There was no realistic prospect of service, cooperation, extradition or trial — R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court (2025) holds that where a prosecutor “could never have seen the proceedings through” the application is an abuse.
Ancillary criticisms
The Judge also observed that ICJP had sought anonymity for the proceedings while simultaneously briefing the press (posting details of the ex parte application on its website on 25 October 2024, before any judicial determination) — a pattern “calculated to allow ICJP to control the narrative and enhance its public profile.”
Held:
“It is entirely improper for these proceedings to have been brought. The application for a summons is REFUSED.”
The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) applied for a summons to begin a private prosecution of ‘A’, an anonymised dual British-Israeli national, under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 (FEA). ICJP alleged that A unlawfully enlisted in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) on or about 8 October 2023. It was ICJP’s first private prosecution, and the first attempt to use this Victorian statute in modern times.
The legal test
Under authorities including Kay, Sunderland and Klahn, a magistrate must consider whether the offence is known to law, whether its essential ingredients are prima facie present, whether the court has jurisdiction and the allegation is in time, and whether the informant has authority. Even where those conditions are met, the court can refuse where the application is vexatious, an abuse of process, or otherwise improper — and where the prosecutor has breached the duty of candour owed to the court.
Why the application was refused
The Chief Magistrate gave multiple, independent reasons, any one of which would have been sufficient.
1. Legally misconceived. The FEA was designed to stop British nationals acting as mercenaries and to safeguard British neutrality. It draws a binary line between “British subjects” and “foreign subjects” and does not sensibly apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of their other country of nationality. ICJP’s reliance on s.51 of the British Nationality Act 1981 was rejected: s.51(5)(a) disapplies that reading where “the context otherwise requires”, and the opposite reading would absurdly criminalise, e.g., Indian or Cypriot Commonwealth citizens enlisting in their own national armies — an extraterritorial overreach forbidden by R (Marouf) v SSHD.
2. No “enlistment” on the alleged date. Section 4 criminalises enlistment, not continuing service. A was already an IDF reservist before October 2023. On 8 October 2023 he merely reported for duty under a pre-existing liability imposed by Israeli law — he did not “accept or agree to accept” any new commission.
3. No “state of war” in the legal sense. Whether a state of war exists is a matter reserved to the Executive (Amin v Brown). There was no Foreign Secretary’s certificate or equivalent recognising a formal state of war between Israel and any friendly state. Colloquial or rhetorical use of “war” does not suffice. The recent UK recognition of Palestinian statehood (21 September 2025) cannot retrospectively transform the legal character of earlier conduct. The conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon are, in substance, with Hamas and Hezbollah — proscribed terrorist organisations with whom the UK cannot be “at peace” in any meaningful sense.
4. License of the Crown. Successive UK Governments (2014, December 2023, January 2024, April 2024, June 2025) have repeatedly and consistently stated that the FEA does not apply to British dual nationals serving in the IDF. The Judge held those statements amount to the functional equivalent of a license from the Crown — a complete answer to the charge on its own.
5. Evidentially hollow. The applicant relied on open-source material (e.g. photographs said to show a British passport) rather than admissible evidence; there was no admissible proof of British citizenship, no evidence of fresh enlistment during the alleged period, and no evidence of a legal state of war.
6. Profound breaches of the duty of candour. A private prosecutor is a “Minister for Justice” and must disclose anything that might militate against the grant of a summons (Kay). ICJP failed to put before the court: the repeated UK Government statements; the CPS prosecution guidance reflecting that position; its own earlier June 2022 referral of essentially the same issue to the Metropolitan Police’s SO15; the close institutional ties between ICJP and its solicitors Bindmans LLP (Deputy Managing Partner Tayab Ali is a director of ICJP; the late Sir Geoffrey Bindman sat on ICJP’s Advisory Board); and the lack of independence of its purported expert, Dr Mandy Turner, who was in an ICJP WhatsApp group and whose report was described as containing demonstrable factual errors, pejorative terminology (“IOF” for IDF), and content “more akin to propaganda than independent analysis.”
7. Non-justiciability (Al-Haq). Even if the legal test were otherwise met, determining whether Israel was “at war” with Palestine, Lebanon or Syria, or whether Palestine was a “state” under s.30 of the FEA, would require the court to adjudicate on matters of foreign relations, recognition, and international conflict classification — territory reserved to the Executive under the Foreign Act of State doctrine and the “one-voice” principle reaffirmed in Al-Haq, Belhaj and Maduro Board. The Judge quoted Lord Diplock’s 1976 observation that the FEA is “out of date and obscure… unworkable in practice and should be repealed.”
8. Abuse of process / improper motive. The Judge found the dominant motive was not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act but the advancement of a political and ideological agenda — using the criminal court as a platform for political posturing and to attack the UK Government’s stated policy on dual-national service in the IDF. The application also sought to circumvent safeguards such as the DPP consent requirement for universal-jurisdiction arrest warrants (introduced by s.153 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011). Brought together with the candour breaches and partisan expert evidence, the proceedings were “truly oppressive” and vexatious.
9. Procedural impracticability. A is in Israel. There was no realistic prospect of service, cooperation, extradition or trial — R (Bates) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court (2025) holds that where a prosecutor “could never have seen the proceedings through” the application is an abuse.
Ancillary criticisms
The Judge also observed that ICJP had sought anonymity for the proceedings while simultaneously briefing the press (posting details of the ex parte application on its website on 25 October 2024, before any judicial determination) — a pattern “calculated to allow ICJP to control the narrative and enhance its public profile.”
Held:
“It is entirely improper for these proceedings to have been brought. The application for a summons is REFUSED.”