The High Court has handed down judgment in Al-Haq’s challenge to the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel.

Al-Haq is a Palestinian human rights organisation challenging the government’s decision to continue granting licences to sell F-35 fighter jet components and other weapons to Israel.

On 2 September 2024 the government concluded that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law in Gaza and, as a result, decided to suspend exports of certain weapons to Israel, on the grounds that there was a clear risk that they might be used by Israel to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. However, it decided to continue to export F-35 fighter jet components.

F-35s have been described as the most lethal fighter jets in the world. They have been used extensively by Israel in its ongoing attacks in Gaza, having been modified by Israel to carry and drop very large ordnance. As the UK is the sole supplier of critical parts to F-35 jets, it follows that every new F-35 jet will include UK parts.

In court, the government accepted that continuing to export F-35 components breached its own policy on weapons sales but maintained that suspending the licences would cause significant disruption to the F-35 programme, and have a critical impact on international peace and security.

Al-Haq argued that this decision is unlawful in a number of respects. In particular, it argued that the decision was not compliant with international and domestic law, and outside the government’s powers because of the significant risk that it facilitated crime. It argued that the government had taken an irrational approach to assessing the consequences of suspending the licences, that it had no good reason to depart from its own policy on weapons sales and that it had exercised its discretion in relation to other weapons sales in an irrational way.

The High Court has rejected Al-Haq’s case. It has found that the UK’s participation in the F-35 programme is a matter for the electorate and not the courts. It has not decided the international law issues, having concluded that they were non-justiciable, and it has found that it was not irrational for the government to fail to consider the consequences of continuing the exports because the exercise would not have been capable of overriding the consequences of suspension.

Alice Hardy, partner in the Public Law and Human Rights team at Bindmans representing Al-Haq, said:

This is a disappointing judgment. If ever there was a case for the court to decide, this was it. Instead, the court has declined to consider key parts of Al-Haq’s case, including whether the government’s continued export of F-35 licences is compliant with international law. Al-Haq is rightly proud of its achievements with this case, including the decision in September 2024 to suspend exports of weapons destined for use in Gaza, save for F-35 components. It is considering its position.

Al-Haq is represented by Dearbhla Minogue, Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe, Jennine Walker, George Collecott and Sicelo Ngwenya at the Global Legal Action Network, supervised by Alice Hardy at Bindmans. Their counsel team comprises Phillippa Kaufmann KC, Raza Husain KC, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC and Eleanor Mitchell of Matrix Chambers, Zac Sammour and Aliya Al-Yassin of 11 Kings Bench Walk, Admas Habteslasie of Landmark Chambers, Catherine Drummond of Three Verulam Buildings, Rayan Fakhoury and Aislinn Kelly-Lyth of Blackstone Chambers, Jagoda Klimowicz of Brick Court Chambers, Mira Hammad of Garden Court North, Courtney Grafton at 20 Essex Chambers, and Rebecca Brown of 2 Temple Gardens.