Martin Chamberlain

Martin Chamberlain LinkedIn (Lawyer,judge)
File:Martin Chamberlain judge.png
Born	25 November 1973 Edinburgh, Scotland
Nationality	UK
Alma mater	Stewart's Melville College,University College (Oxford)
British High Court judge

Sir Martin Daniel Chamberlain is a British High Court judge.

Early life end education

Chamberlain was born in Edinburgh, Scotland and educated at Stewart's Melville College in Edinburgh. He studied at University College, Oxford, completing a BA in 1994. In 1994, he attended City University of London and completed a graduate diploma in law, then returned to University College and completed the BCL in 1996. He was an Eldon Scholar in 1997.

Career

Chamberlain was called to the bar at Middle Temple in 1997 and joined Brick Court Chambers in 2000 where he practised public law and human rights. As a practitioner, he appeared before European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and served as Special Advocate in national security cases from 2003. He took silk in 2013. From 2011 to 2020, he appeared joint third most at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom with 24 appearances; he was behind Richard Drabble with 28 and the Treasury Devil Sir James Eadie with 65.

In an interview in The Times, he called for the UK to adopt an equivalent of the United States' First Amendment, saying the European Convention of Human Rights as included in UK law was too weak. He was also chair of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association. He was appointed a deputy High Court judge in 2016.

High Court appointment

On 1 October 2019, Chamberlain was appointed a judge of the High Court at the age of 45 and assigned to the Queen's Bench Division. He received the customary knighthood in the same year. In 2019, he was part of the High Court who decided the Metropolitan Police's ban of Extinction Rebellion's 2019 protests was unlawful.

Proscription of Palestine Action

On 21 July 2025, Judge Chamberlain heard the case brought by Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori who challenged the group's proscription by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. The hearing centred on whether Ammori would be granted permission to challenge the proscription through a Judicial Review.

Raza Husain KC opened: "the proscription... renders the UK an international outlier", with direct action typically viewed as activism not terrorism. Husain focused on the problems inherent to definitions used within the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that terrorism can involve "the use or threat of action" designed to influence government involving "serious damage to property".

Irish KC Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh took over and provided context on the Israeli atrocities in Gaza which Palestine Action sought to disrupt and prevent. She cited UN experts and NGOs:

• Israel has killed a classroom of children every day for 653 days, alongside their parents and grandparents;
• An average of 10 children in Gaza lose their limbs every day;
• Israel has done that while damaging or destroying every single hospital in Gaza, including picking off Gaza’s medics;
• Israel is starving the population of Gaza. There is at present no baby milk left in Gaza. People are literally, medically, wasting away – they are starving to death;
• That’s despite enough food for the population of Gaza being stockpiled at the borders and not being let in.

Blinne continued: "There is near consensus in the human rights world that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza". The Israeli military is doing this "with parts that are being provided by arms firms in Britain", particularly F-35 suppliers. Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms firm and Palestine Action's main target, plays a key role in these war crimes and crimes against humanity, Blinne added. Elbit “markets itself as the backbone of the IDF and describes its employees as civil soldiers”, she said.

Blinne concluded on this point: 30 years ago, after Srebrenica, "we said never again, let us not fail once again... That is what the claimant, and individuals associated with Palestine Action, have been seeking to disrupt and prevent".

Blinne then moved onto the impact of proscription of civil society and the right to protest. She referenced specifically the incident in Kent, where armed police officers questioned a woman who was waving a Palestine flag and holding a placard condemning the genocide in Gaza. Chamberlain countered that: “This is obviously an officer that doesn’t understand the law at all”. Blinne said that's "cold comfort" for the woman who was told she can't protest again in Kent. Crucially, Blinne said nobody has come out and said the officers did anything wrong. "Kent has not issued an apology or a retraction. The Secretary of State has not come out and said that this is a manifest misapplication of the law", Blinne declared. There is therefore no reason to believe the incident in Kent will not be replicated across the country.

File:Private Eye PA.jpeg

Blinne cited another "egregious example" in which a protester was arrested for carrying a reproduction of a satirical image published in Private Eye (pictured). "It is now unclear whether Private Eye will have a knock on the door themselves", she said. Blinne also cited submissions from Declassified UK and Novara Media regarding concerns about the implications of proscription for freedom of the press. There is "sheer confusion as to what journalists can and cannot publish" now, she said.

Blinne concluded some of the above arguments:

a) We're not just complaining about the impact on individuals who happen to be caught up in the proscription, we say that Palestine Action's proscription is incompatible with the Terrorism Act;

b) Proscription is unnecessary in a democratic society, there were alternative measures available to the state which were not pursued;

c) The court must not place undue weight onto national security issues if they are not a central feature of the Home Office case.

d) Proscription of Palestine Action is unlawfully discriminatory because it has a disproportionate impact on Palestinians who protest in favour of international law as it applies to Palestinians. They do not apply to others, including those who are anti-Palestinian rights.

Unlike the rest of the general public, those who want to speak out against what Israel is doing and in support of Palestinian rights are disproportionately affected by the proscription.

Raza Husain KC took over from Blinne and focused on the problems inherent to definitions used within the Terrorism Act. The Act states that terrorism can involve "the use or threat of action" designed to influence government involving "serious damage to property". Husain emphasised that "it is absurd to say look at the definition" of the Terrorism Act and say the Home Secretary "can just proscribe", because this "runs completely contrary to common law". Husain cited Lord Anderson, the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who said the definitions of terrorism within the Act are "remarkably broad, absurdly so". A literal interpretation of the definitions, without reference to what Parliament intended for the Act or common understandings of what constitutes terrorism, would allow protest or political groups to be proscribed regardless of "how odious the regime they have attacked".

The government's lawyers then took over for a long discussion on procedural issues. Judge Chamberlain was concerned about the proper forum for individuals to argue proscription is disproportionate after they have been arrested for holding up a sign saying "I support Palestine Action".

"If I’m thinking in terms of discretion, surely it would be much better for the proportionality of the order to be considered in Judicial Review proceedings than to be considered by a magistrates court?", Chamberlain asked.

The government's lawyers countered this by saying that anyone could then rely on a human rights argument to get Judicial Review, with the effect of effectively "unravelling the statutory regime". They argued that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) is the appropriate forum for reviewing proscription rather than Judicial Review. They said POAC is a specialist tribunal established by parliament relating to claims on proscription, overseen by three judges, which can more easily review evidence provided to closed court.

After a break for lunch, the Court was told that a decision may be handed down at around 4:30pm, but that could be subject to change. When the Court adjourned to review closed evidence, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh asked Chamberlain whether he would return with a ruling at 4:30pm. He replied: "I don’t know what I’m going to do. I’ll need to see what the closed session brings. And I’ll let you know what I’m proposing to do at 4:30pm".

Judge Chamberlain later announced that he is withholding judgment until next week. There will be a further hearing on Wednesday 30 July 2025 when the full judgment will be handed down to both parties.

Personal life

In 2001, he married Samantha Broadfoot (a recorder and fellow QC), with whom he has a son and two daughters.