Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules

The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an “unlawful interference” with freedom of expression.

And in a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said that two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori’s behalf were “reasonably arguable”.

In his ruling, he said that it was “reasonably arguable” that the proscription “amounts to a disproportionate interference” of Ms Ammori’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

He said: “That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.”

The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action “in breach of natural justice”, was also “reasonably arguable”.

He said: “As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.”

He continued: “Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.”

Following the ruling, Ms Ammori said: “This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary’s unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.”

She continued: “We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.”

Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK “an international outlier” and was “repugnant”.

Mr Husain added: “The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.”

The Home Office is defending the legal action.

Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was “squarely” within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription.

He said: “There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Previously, Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary’s decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court.

Sir James said that an “exceptional case” would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC.

Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer.

He said: “If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.”

Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was “disgraceful”.