PALESTINIAN human rights organisation Al-Haq should be allowed to challenge the High Court’s dismissal of its legal bid over fighter jet part exports, appeal judges heard today.

Al-Haq previously challenged the Department for Business and Trade’s decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, claiming it was unlawful and “gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime.”

In September last year, the government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict.

But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme.

Al-Haq challenged this at the High Court, including by arguing that this “carve-out” put Britain in breach of international obligations.

The challenge was dismissed by two judges in June.

Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) announced in August that they would seek to appeal against the decision and at a hearing today, lawyers on behalf of Al-Haq made a bid to bring their appeal.

Phillippa Kaufmann KC, for Al-Haq, said in written submissions that the Department for Business and Trade had not made proper attempts to understand what the risks of exporting the parts are compared with the risks of suspending the F-35 programme.

Ms Kaufmann said there would be a “potentially decisive difference” between a limited risk of exported items being used to commit “serious but nevertheless isolated violations” of international law, compared with “a strong likelihood of the items being used to commit or facilitate widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity, or indeed acts of genocide, affecting the entire Palestinian population in Gaza.”

The appeal was also told that decisions around the “carve-out” are within Britain’s jurisdiction.

The Home Office opposes the bid for an appeal, saying in written submissions that none of the arguments has “any real prospect of success.”

Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, continued in written submissions: “The issues before the court were dealt with comprehensively and there is a need for finality.”

The hearing before Lady Justice King, Lady Justice Whipple and Lord Justice Dingemans was due to conclude today with a decision expected in writing at a later date.