The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has been ordered to pay costs after suffering a crushing defeat in its attempt to bring a private prosecution against a dual British-Israeli citizen who returned to his Israel Defence Forces reserve unit following the Hamas atrocities of 7 October 2023.

In a highly critical judgment delivered by Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused ICJP’s application for a summons and condemned what it described as profound failures in the organisation’s duty of candour to the court.

The proposed prosecution had alleged that the defendant had committed an offence under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 by travelling to Israel on 8 October 2023 and rejoining his military unit. However, the court rejected the application in its entirety, finding that it was fundamentally misconceived in law, unsupported by evidence and tainted by serious disclosure failures.

The judgment was particularly notable for its criticism of ICJP’s conduct. Judge Goldspring stated that the courts “must not be used as a vehicle for political debate” or to expose individuals for alleged wrongdoing falling outside the criminal law, adding: “I fear that is close to being the case here.”

The court held that ICJP had failed to disclose a series of highly material matters, including repeated statements by successive UK Governments confirming that British dual nationals are entitled to serve in the armed forces of their other nationality, including the IDF. The judge found that these omissions constituted “profound and serious breaches of the duty of candour”.

Judge Goldspring also rejected ICJP’s central legal argument that a dual British-Israeli national serving in the armed forces of Israel could be regarded as a “British subject” joining the forces of a “foreign state” for the purposes of the 1870 Act. He described that interpretation as “fundamentally flawed” and warned that it would lead to absurd consequences, potentially criminalising British Commonwealth nationals serving in the armed forces of countries such as India, Pakistan or Cyprus.

The court further found that the defendant had not “enlisted” on 8 October 2023 at all. Rather, he was already an IDF reservist and simply reported for duty pursuant to an existing legal obligation under Israeli law. As the judge observed, section 4 criminalises enlistment, not continuing service.

In one of the most damaging passages of the judgment, the court concluded that ICJP had failed to disclose important information concerning its links with its solicitors, Bindmans LLP, and with one of its expert witnesses, Dr Mandy Turner. The judge found that Dr Turner was not an independent expert but should properly be regarded as “a campaigner and activist” whose evidence displayed bias and lack of independence.

Having dismissed the prosecution attempt, the court then considered applications for costs. In a further ruling delivered on 19 June 2026, Judge Goldspring refused an application for wasted costs against Bindmans LLP and ICJP’s barristers, finding that the high legal threshold for such orders had not been met. However, he reached a different conclusion regarding ICJP itself.

The judge held that ICJP had acted improperly within the meaning of section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and specifically identified its failures in relation to the duty of candour. He found that these failings had caused the defendant to incur additional legal costs and described them as “egregious”.

Referring back to his original judgment, Judge Goldspring noted that compliance with the duty of candour is “the foundation stone upon which such decisions are taken” and that, in this case, “that foundation stone has crumbled.” He therefore ordered that costs be awarded against ICJP, with the amount to be determined at a later hearing.

The ruling represents a significant setback for ICJP and raises serious questions about its decision to pursue a politically charged private prosecution that the court ultimately found to be legally unsustainable and procedurally defective.

Bindmans also informed they Court that they had reported themselves to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA).

The proposed defendant was represented by barristers Peter Wright KC and Natasha Hausdorff, instructed by solicitor Daniel Berke of 3D Law. Natasha Hausdorff also serves as legal director of UKLFI Charitable Trust. Daniel Berke is also a director of the association UK Lawyers for Israel.   

A spokesperson for UK Lawyers for Israel said:

“The main judgment was a complete vindication of the position that British-Israeli dual nationals who serve in the IDF are not committing criminal offences under the Foreign Enlistment Act. The court rejected ICJP’s case on every point and delivered a devastating criticism of the way in which the application was presented.

“Particularly concerning are the court’s findings that ICJP failed to disclose material information and breached its duty of candour. Private prosecutors  are expected to act as ministers of justice. The court’s decision to order costs against ICJP reflects the seriousness of those failures.”