Important Disclaimer! This is me, David Chapman, with no legal training, trying to make sense of what has gone on. I will come back to edit it as I understand things better.
This is one of my Lift the Ban posts
1 The Home Secretary proscribes Palestine Action
23 June 2025. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, made a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons. She explained that she proposed to make an order adding Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). The draft order added PA, together with two other organisations—the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—to the list of proscribed organisations. It was affirmed by each House (the House of Commons on 2 July and the House of Lords on 3 July).
2 Huda Ammori (PA) requests a Judicial Review
Huda Ammori (PA) requested a Judicial Review, submitting the papers on 27 June, including an application for interim relief to restrain the Secretary of State from making the proscription order or, if made before the hearing, to suspend its effect.
3 Interim decisions
4 July 2025. Justice Chamberlain gave judgement on the request for the interim relief on 4 July (ref. [2025] EWHC 1708 (Admin)). Conclusion: the application for interim relief is refused. [Included in the judgement is a statement apparently indicating that Justice Chamberlain does not consider PA to be a terrorist organisation in the colloquial meaning of the word. But if this is a problem he notes that it has been for 25 years since it is to do with the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act of 2000.)]
The judgement is immediately appealed by Ammori and a decision as to whether an appeal will be allowed is given that same day. Court of Appeal: Lady Chief Justice (The Lady Carr), Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis. Judgement: Permission to appeal is refused. (ref [2025] EWCA Civ 848)
4 Proscription takes effect
Since the interim relief was not allowed, the proscription comes into effect as of 5 July 2025 (I think - need to confirm that date.)
5 Judicial Review allowed
30th July 2025: Justice Chamberlain gives judgement allowing a Judicial Review: "I grant permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 2 and 8, but refuse it on all the other grounds." (Ref. [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin))
These are the eight grounds from Ammori:
- Ground 1 that the order is ultra vires and/or was made for an improper purpose
- Ground 2 that the proscription order is contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is incompatible with the rights of the claimant and others under Article 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
- Ground 3 that PA is not “concerned in terrorism”.
- Grounds 4 and 5 These grounds allege that the Secretary of State took into account irrelevant considerations, namely the views of the Israeli Government, Elbit Systems and pro-Israel lobby groups, while failing to take into account matters which told against proscription.
- Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy
- Ground 7 that the Secretary of State breached the public sector equality duty in s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
- Ground 8 that the decision was taken in breach of natural justice and/or in breach of Article 6 ECHR because PA was not consulted in advance.
6 Home secretary appeals (and not only loses but gives the Review more grounds!
17 October 2025 Judgement from Court of Appeal (Lady Chief Justice (The Lady Carr), Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis) ref. [2025] EWCA Civ 1311
Conclusion: We dismiss the appeal. Two further grounds added to those allowed by Justice Chamberlain:
- Ground 5 that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to relevant considerations
- Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy
So after the appeal, the Judicial Review will proceed, with four grounds:
- Ground 2 that the proscription order is contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is incompatible with the rights of the claimant and others under Article 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
- Ground 5 that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to relevant consideration
- Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy
- Ground 8 that the decision was taken in breach of natural justice and/or in breach of Article 6 ECHR because PA was not consulted in advance.
7 Decision of the Judicial Review
The Judicial Review was due to be heard by Justice Chamberlain, but just before it commenced he was removed and replaced by a panel of three: Dame Victoria Sharp DBE, President of the King’s Bench Division, Mr Justice Swift, and Mrs Justice Steyn DBE. It was generally believed at the time that this change was detrimental to the case for Ammori. I've no idea how the decision on who hears the case is made, or who has the authority to make it and make changes.
The judgement was issue on 12 February 2026 (ref [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin)). To general surprise, the judgement was:
150 For the reasons given above, Grounds 5 and 8 of the claim fail and are dismissed, but the claimant succeeds on Grounds 6 and 2 of her claim. To this extent the claimant’s claim is allowed. Subject to any further representations on relief, we propose to make an order quashing the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
So the two that were allowed were:
- Ground 2 that the proscription order is contrary to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 because it is incompatible with the rights of the claimant and others under Article 10, 11 and 14 ECHR.
- Ground 6 that the Secretary of State failed to apply her published policy
(It is perhaps worth noting that Ground 6 was only under consideration because the Home Secretary appealed the decision to allow the review!)
Despite the decision, the press-release associated with the judgement said:
The court has directed the parties to provide written submissions by 20 February 2026 on the terms of the order that should be made in the light of this judgment. [150] Palestine Action remains proscribed until further order of the court because the court has yet to hear argument on whether there should be a stay of any order setting aside the proscription Order pending the possibility of an appeal.
The proscription Order remains in force until further order of the court...
(TBH, I don't understand that because it references paragraph 150 which is the paragraph that I quote (in full) above. Maybe it is the "Subject to any further representations on relief".)
The judgement is 46 pages with 150 numbered paragraphs. I have read it all and, while I struggle to understand a lot of it, there are things that I want to address, which I will do in another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment