The use of criminal courts as a platform for political posturing is an abuse of process, the chief magistrate has ruled throwing out a 'vexatious' attempted private prosecution. In International Centre for Justice of Palestinians v A, campaign group ICJP applied for a summons under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 against an unnamed individual of dual British-Israeli nationality serving in the Israeli armed forces. 

Dismissing the application, Paul Goldspring, chief magistrate for England and Wales, said the attempted prosecution was misconceived in law, evidentially hollow and made 'profound breaches of the duty of candour'. 

'A private prosecutor must act as a "minister for justice" and owes a high duty of candour to the court,' the judge stated. However, according to the judgment, the would-be prosecutors failed to disclose six separate government statements between 2014 and 2025 on British nationals serviing in Israel's armed forces. 'This is a serious and inexcusable omission', judge ruled.

The ICJP also failed to note CPS guidance that the Foreign Enlistment Act - which has not been enforced in modern times - does not apply to enlistment forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings.

The ICJP also failed to disclose 'deep connections' between itself and Bindmans LLP, the London human rights firm acting in the case. It was also highly critical of the expert witness called by ICJP, describing her as 'a campaigner and activist committed to the political agenda pursued by this prosecution'. 

'These omissions are not merely procedural oversights. They are the witholding of material information, which is a critical factor in determining an abuse of process,' the judge ruled.  'The criminal courts are not a platform for political posturing or the pursuit of ideological greivances.' It concluded that 'the vexatious nature of these proceedings is clear'. The application for a summons was refused. 

This article is now closed for comment.