Magennis: Accused TV presenter of “trying to associate me with my client”
The barrister acting for terror group Hamas has accused a Talk TV presenter of putting a “target on my back” by associating him with his client.
At the same time, Franck Magennis’s set, Garden Court Chambers, has distanced itself from him.
We reported last week that South London law firm Riverway Way, Mr Magennis and another barrister, Daniel Grutters of One Pump Court, were at the centre of a political and social media storm after applying to the home secretary to have Hamas removed from the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000.
In an interview on Talk TV, Mr Magennis responded to being asked ‘How do you sleep at night?’ by telling presenter Peter Cardwell what “what you’ve done is extremely dangerous and you shouldn’t have asked that question…
“You are trying to associate me with my client… I think you might be hearing from the police.”
He explained: “The low point of it on this side of the Irish Sea was Boris Johnson and Priti Patel using the phrase ‘activist lawyers’, they knew what they were doing, they were using it to stoke anti-migrant racism, and a man showed up with a knife at a law firm, calling by name for a solicitor that I know personally because they put a target on his back.
“The low point on the Irish side of the Irish Sea is Pat Finucane, of course. A British MP stood up in Parliament and said ‘He’s just like his client’. Pat Finucane represented members of the Provisional IRA, which is another proscribed organisation, and three week later was murdered in front of his family by Loyallist paramilitaries.”
In testy exchanges, Mr Magennis accused Mr Cardwell of “playing the same game – you’ve just put a target on my back”.
Mr Cardwell repeatedly asked the barrister why he had chosen to represent Hamas. Mr Magennis replied: “You’re trying to make me the story. If there are negative consequences, I’m holding you personally responsible.”
He went on to argue that “you don’t have to support a proscribed organisation to think it shouldn’t be proscribed”, adding: “It’s not about my belief. I’m a lawyer instructed to make some legal arguments, which is what I’ve done.”
Mr Magennis makes no secret of his pro-Palestinian views on social media, and his biography on the Garden Court Chambers website says: “He has expertise in legal claims connected to Palestinian emancipation from Israeli occupation.”
On the day of the 7 October attacks on Israel, he tweeted “Victory to the intifiada” and changed the photo on his X account to a bulldozer crashing through the border fence, although he has since replaced it.
Asked in another interview on Times Radio if Hamas’s actions on 7 October were those of terrorists, Mr Magennis said: “The actions on the 7 October are caught by the very broad definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act, that’s obvious.”
Natasha Hausdorff, a barrister at Six Pump Court and legal director of the UK Lawyers For Israel Charitable Trust, was asked on GB News if the lawyers making the application should be struck off.
She declined to answer but said: “It’s important that everyone has representation and that credible cases are put forward, but there are very significant obligations on barristers and solicitors not to put forward arguments that are lacking in credibility or to knowingly mislead.
“And looking at the content of this application, there are legitimate concerns here.”
She described the application as “ridiculous” and questioned the “quality of the analysis and reasoning”, continuing: “There’s blatant support for Hamas articulated in the application itself, and characterisation of Hamas activities as ‘legitimate armed resistance’…
“If you step back for a moment, one really begins to get a sense of how this weaponisation of international law, the inversion of these concepts, against Israel is gathering speed and is going to be used not just against Israel but against Western civilisation as a whole.”
In a statement on its website, Garden Court Chambers said it was aware that “one of its members” had been “instructed to present an application to the Home Secretary, requesting that a proscribed organisation be de-proscribed”.
It went on: “All members of Garden Court Chambers are members of the independent Bar of England and Wales, are self-employed and are regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Professional conduct of members is not regulated by Garden Court Chambers.
“The barrister concerned has chosen to undertake this case in his individual capacity, and this in no way indicates that Garden Court Chambers supports his client.
“We take this opportunity as a chambers to make clear that we unequivocally condemn racism and antisemitism in all its forms.”
Leave a Comment