ICJ Palestine has been ordered by a UK judge to pay full legal costs of £82,130 to a British-Israeli dual national it tried to prosecute for serving in the IDF.
As covered by The Jerusalem Post at the end of June, the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) formally applied for a court summons to prosecute Soldier A for allegedly breaching Britain’s Foreign Enlistment Act (FEA) of 1870 by voluntarily serving in the Israeli military.
The ICJP's attempt failed dramatically in court, with Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates’ Court unleashing a damning polemic against the ICJP's legal team. Goldspring called the attempt “egregious” and legally “inadmissible.” He also called it "fundamentally misconceived in law,” as the FEA does not apply to dual nationals.
Then, on June 19, Goldspring ruled that the ICJP must pay legal costs to Soldier A, the exact amount of which was just revealed on July 10.
In the new ruling, Goldspring ruled that, where a private prosecution is commenced on the "basis of culpable, profound breaches of the fundamental duty of candor, costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis to properly restore the Defendant’s position." In simple terms, the judge found that because the prosecution seriously failed in its duty to be honest and open with the court, it should pay Soldier A's legal costs on a more generous basis than usual.
Goldspring ordered the ICJP to pay the total sum of £82,130, which he said was "entirely reasonable and proportionate given the complexity of the response forced upon Soldier A."
Judge demands ICJP apologize for lack of candor
Goldspring noted that the ICJP did "recognize the systemic failures of candor" following his prior ruling. He also said that the ICJP issued an apology to both the Court and Soldier A for "its failures to comply with its core duties of candor."
ICJP, in return, took issue with Goldspring's April 8 demand that it attach an unabridged copy of both the Soldier A ruling and the costs ruling "to any future application it may file in any court in England and Wales as a procedural safeguard."
Goldspring subsequently concluded that he does lack the power to issue a mandatory, standalone injunction binding future court filings across England and Wales, and therefore reframed this request as an "explicit expectation rather than a mandatory request."