Ruling clears path for judicial challenge to Palestine Action ban
A significant legal development allows a challenge to the UK government’s ban on Palestine Action to proceed, after the Court of Appeal rejected the Home Office’s bid to halt the case. The decision paves the way for a judicial review of the proscription under the Terrorism Act to take place next month, in what is seen as a landmark test of how anti-terrorism powers interact with political protest groups.
What happened and why it matters
The ban on Palestine Action—an organisation known for its direct-action campaign against what it describes as Israeli violations—took effect on 5 July. It categorized the group alongside established terrorist designations such as Islamic State and National Action. Since the proscription, more than 2,000 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act, with many accused of simply holding signs that read: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
The Home Office argued on appeal that the proper route to challenge the proscription was not through a judicial review but through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a body Parliament created for such challenges. The reasoning behind this argument rests on a traditional view that objections to proscription are best addressed within a specialized tribunal designed for de-listing and related issues.
The Court of Appeal’s stance
Three judges, led by the Lady Chief Justice, upheld the original High Court decision by Mr Justice Chamberlain to grant a judicial review to Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action. The court’s ruling effectively rejects the Home Office’s attempt to block the case and confirms that the challenge can proceed in the regular court system. The judges emphasized that a swift, authoritative determination from the High Court could offer clearer guidance on the legality and scope of proscription, and could address the criminal cases already brought under the Terrorism Act more efficiently than the POAC route.
What this means for the legal timeline
The High Court hearing is scheduled to begin on 25 November and will last three days. The decision marks a milestone: it is the first time a group banned under anti-terrorism laws has been granted a court trial to challenge the proscription itself, rather than merely appealing on related charges. A successful judicial review could lead to a reassessment of the ban’s legality or its application to supporters and actions deemed by the government to fall within counter-terrorism powers.
Implications for protest and legal scrutiny
Beyond the immediate case, the ruling raises broader questions about how anti-terrorism measures are used in relation to political activism. Critics argue that broad or rapid proscription can chill lawful protest and criminalise ordinary supporters, while supporters say robust tools are necessary to counter extremism. The outcome of the High Court hearing could influence future debates on the balance between security concerns and civil liberties.
Next steps and what supporters are watching
As the November hearing approaches, legal experts will scrutinize the arguments on sufficiency of evidence for proscription, the fairness of the process, and the efficiency of the judicial mechanisms available to challenge such measures. Updates are anticipated as more details emerge about the proceedings and potential implications for those charged under the Terrorism Act in relation to Palestine Action.
More details will follow as the case progresses and the High Court delivers its judgment on the merits of the judicial review.
