🔗 Share this article

In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government sought an exit, and the public mood had shifted significantly.

A Growing Risk to Lives

The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at increasing risk. Last Friday, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed on the 46th day.) Twenty-year-old Qesser Zuhrah is being treated in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, one after hospitalisation.

The Circumstances of Detention

The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, and in relation to an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison before trial – much longer the standard custody limit. Several may not be tried until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the proscription on Palestine Action.

The government ought to reconsider proscription not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.

A Glaring Disparity in Government Response

There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.

The Urgent Issue of Remand

More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the legal and prison systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand are indefensible, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.

Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue

Ministers have said that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is naturally cautious of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply ignore this in the expectation that it will go away. Recently, the failure of the Justice Secretary to reply to MPs’ requests for information was described as completely unsatisfactory. When asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.