Background: A First-in-Class Challenge to a Proscription
A landmark legal battle is on the horizon after a Court of Appeal ruling allowed a judicial challenge to the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action to go ahead next month. The ruling upheld a lower court decision that granted a judicial review to Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, regarding the group’s proscription under the Terrorism Act. The decision marks the first time a group banned under anti-terrorism law has been granted a court trial to challenge the ban itself.
The Home Office moved to block the case by arguing that the proper route for challenging a proscription is through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC). Parliament created the POAC to hear appeals against proscription decisions. However, the three-judge panel, led by the Lady Chief Justice, disagreed that the POAC was the exclusive forum for such challenges, stating that a judicial review could resolve the matter more quickly and provide a clear authoritative determination on the legal consequences for those accused of criminal offences since proscription.
The Proscription That Sparked the Controversy
Palestine Action was proscribed on 5 July, placing it among groups deemed to endorse or support extremist violence. The ban has had immediate and sweeping implications, including arrests under the Terrorism Act for supporters who publicly signaled solidarity with Palestine Action. Reports indicate that more than 2,000 people have been detained or arrested in connection with alleged support, many for displaying signs stating: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Critics of the ban argue it could chill protest and limit the space for dissent, while proponents maintain that proscription is a necessary tool to curb extremism.
The Supreme Court Pathway and Timetable
The high court hearing to determine the merits of the judicial review is scheduled to begin on 25 November and is slated to last three days. The case will test the legal boundaries between proscription as a counter-terrorism measure and the rights of individuals and groups to challenge government actions through the courts. The decision could have far-reaching implications for how quickly and how transparently proscription decisions are reviewed, potentially affecting other organisations subjected to similar restrictions in the future.
Why the Appeal Court Ruling Matters
For supporters of Palestine Action, the Court of Appeal’s decision preserves a critical route to challenge the government’s designation. A successful judicial review could lead to a reevaluation of the ban’s legality, its statutory grounds under the Terrorism Act, and how evidence is weighed in proscription cases. For advocates of civil liberties, the ruling signals a judicial willingness to scrutinise executive powers in matters of national security and to provide a timely forum for urgent constitutional questions. The government, meanwhile, must navigate the potential complexities of a court-led review that could redefine the balance between counter-extremism measures and the protection of lawful protest.
What Comes Next
As the litigation prepares to unfold in November, observers will be watching closely for how the court handles sensitive evidence, the standards applied in assessing risk and intent, and how procedural rules shape the speed and scope of the review. Legal analysts say the case could also influence how other proscribed groups seek redress and how Parliament and the Home Office respond to judicial feedback on the effectiveness and fairness of proscription as a policy instrument.
Public and Policy Implications
The case sits at the intersection of security policy, civil liberties, and the right to protest. Its outcome may influence ongoing debates about the proper use of antiterrorism powers, the transparency of proscription processes, and the rights of individuals accused of offences connected to banned organisations. As scrutiny intensifies, the government may face renewed questions about the practical impact of proscription on dissent, policing, and the rights of peaceful demonstrators.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal’s decision to permit a judicial review of the Palestine Action proscription sets the stage for a high-stakes legal confrontation this autumn. With the November hearing just weeks away, the case will test the robustness of proscription under the Terrorism Act and the capacity of the courts to provide timely, authoritative rulings on matters of national security and civil liberties.
