UK court allows challenge to Palestine Action ban to proceed
The legal battle over the UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action can go ahead next month after the Court of Appeal rejected the Home Office’s attempt to block the case. The ruling keeps alive a high-profile challenge to a ban that classifies the group as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act.
What the ruling means
Three judges, led by the Lady Chief Justice, upheld a decision by Mr Justice Chamberlain to grant a judicial review of the proscription. The outcome is notable because it is the first instance of a proscriptions case being pursued through a judicial review rather than the specialised Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC). The Home Office had argued that the correct route for challenging a proscription is via the POAC, a tribunal explicitly designated for this purpose by Parliament.
Context: why the ban matters
The ban, which came into effect on 5 July, placed Palestine Action among the ranks of groups The Home Office equates with major terrorist organisations. Since the proscription, police have arrested more than 2,000 people under the Terrorism Act for alleged support of Palestine Action, with many detained for carrying signs that read: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” The Home Office contends that proscription is a necessary tool to prevent activity that could be linked to violence or the dissemination of extremist material.
The High Court hearing and what’s at stake
The High Court is set to hear the case in late November, with three days allocated for the proceedings beginning on 25 November. The case is significant for several reasons. It tests the breadth of the government’s powers to proscribe organisations under the Terrorism Act and examines the processes by which such decisions can be challenged in court. If the judicial review is successful, it could lead to questions about the criteria used for proscription and the balance between national security and civil liberties. Importantly, the decision would also provide a clearer, faster judicial ruling about the legality of the proscription than the POAC route would have offered.
What comes next for supporters and critics
For supporters of Palestine Action, the ruling preserves a crucial channel to contest the ban, potentially allowing the case to be fully aired in a court setting. Critics, meanwhile, will watch to see whether the court endorses, limits, or overturns the government’s approach to proscribing organisations under anti-terrorism laws. Legal experts say the case could clarify the standards by which the Home Office justifies proscription and whether judicial oversight can provide a swifter, more transparent determination than the specialised appeals route.
Implications for future anti-terrorism prosecutions
Beyond this specific challenge, the proceedings may influence how future cases are handled when the state seeks to classify groups under the Terrorism Act. If the court rules in favour of the judicial review, it could encourage more detainees and supporters to pursue similar challenges, potentially reshaping the landscape of anti-terrorism enforcement and the rights of those accused of supporting proscribed organisations.
Next steps
With the court hearing scheduled for 25 November, observers will be waiting to learn whether the judicial review proceeds on schedule and what legal arguments will be advanced by both sides. The decision could set an important precedent on how quickly courts can adjudicate proscription cases and what criteria they must apply when evaluating government bans on organisations linked to political advocacy and protest.
Conclusion
The prospect of a courtroom test of the Palestine Action proscription marks a rare moment where the legal system will directly adjudicate the balance between security measures and civil liberties under the Terrorism Act. As the November hearing approaches, both supporters and critics of the ban will be watching closely to see how the courts interpret the government’s powers and the rights of those challenging them.
