A Palestinian human rights group will discover on Monday whether it has won a legal challenge against the Government over decisions related to exports of military equipment to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza.
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets.
In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel鈥檚 compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict.
But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 鈥渃arve-out鈥 was unlawful and 鈥済ives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime鈥.
The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 鈥渃onsistent with the rules of international law鈥 and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme.
Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday.
At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 鈥渁gainst the backdrop of human calamity鈥 in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 鈥渓ive-streamed genocide鈥.
In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel.
F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 鈥渃arve out鈥 licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 鈥渨hole F-35 programme鈥 and have a 鈥減rofound impact on international peace and security鈥.
In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 鈥減rovided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK鈥檚 domestic and international legal obligations鈥.
He continued that some of Al-Haq鈥檚 criticisms 鈥渁re not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts鈥 and did not consider 鈥渢he true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis鈥 by the Government when it made the decision.
Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.