The Home Office has argued that a legal challenge to the proscription of protest group Palestine Action is not “exceptional” and should not be heard by the High Court.
Palestine Action’s founder, Huda Ammori, is pursuing a judicial review after former home secretary Yvette Cooper designated the group a terrorist organisation in July, making membership or support punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Cooper announced the ban days after the group claimed responsibility for damaging two RAF Voyager aircraft at Brize Norton, an incident police said caused £7m of damage.
At a Court of Appeal hearing on Thursday, government barrister Sir James Eadie KC said judicial review would create a “recipe for chaos,” opening the door for defendants in criminal cases to challenge bans in court. He insisted the statutory route through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) was sufficient, describing proscription as “a strong executive measure with immediate practical consequences.”
Mr Justice Chamberlain had earlier ruled that Ammori’s case was “reasonably arguable,” finding the ban could represent a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and assembly, and that Cooper’s failure to consult the group may have breached natural justice. He cleared the way for a three-day High Court hearing in November.
Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, told the court: “It is the court, not parliament, who is the guardian of the rule of law.” He argued that the ban has already triggered “ongoing civil disobedience” and affects “hundreds, if not thousands” of people, with more than 1,600 arrests reported since July.
The Home Office is seeking to block that November hearing, claiming judicial review should be a “last resort.” Judges led by the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, reserved their decision.
In a statement, Ammori said the proscription was “deeply troubling,” warning that an appeal victory for the Home Office would “shield an unlawful ban from scrutiny” and deny justice to thousands whose “fundamental free speech rights have been violated.”
