A HIGH COURT judge has granted permission for the co-founder of Palestine Action to launch a legal challenge against the UK Government’s decision to ban the direct action group under terrorism laws.

Huda Ammori, who helped set up the group campaigning against UK arms sales to Israel, will now take her case to a full judicial review after Mr Justice Martin Chamberlain ruled on Wednesday (Jul 30) that her challenge was “reasonably arguable” and should proceed to trial.

Group placed alongside ISIS and Boko Haram

The ban, which came into effect on 5 July, places Palestine Action on the same proscribed list as Islamic State and Boko Haram. The decision means membership, support, or even public expression of sympathy for the group is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Ammori’s lawyers, led by Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, told the court the proscription was “repugnant” and an “authoritarian and blatant abuse of power”. They said it targeted a campaign group whose actions overwhelmingly involved civil disobedience and property damage, rather than acts meeting the legal threshold for terrorism.

Out of 385 recorded incidents linked to Palestine Action, they argued, only three were considered by security agencies to potentially meet that threshold. Internal assessments by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) and MI5 reportedly concluded that national security concerns were minimal.

‘Chilling effect’ on protest and free speech

Since the ban came into force, more than 200 people have reportedly been arrested at demonstrations, with campaigners warning of a “chilling effect” on the right to protest. Ammori’s legal team said the move amounted to a politically motivated clampdown on dissent, in breach of fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Government, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, maintained that the group’s activities justified proscription. In particular, he cited an incident in which activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and caused damage to a military aircraft. He told the court that Parliament had designated the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) as the correct forum to challenge a ban, not a judicial review in the High Court.

Previous bid to block ban failed

Before the ban took effect, Ammori had sought urgent interim relief to suspend it. That application was rejected by Mr Justice Chamberlain on 4 July, who ruled that delaying a proscription approved overwhelmingly by Parliament would undermine the statutory regime. The Court of Appeal dismissed an emergency appeal hours before the ban came into force.

However, at last week’s hearing to decide whether the case could proceed, the judge accepted that two key grounds — the proportionality of the ban and its impact on free expression — were arguable and should be tested at trial.

Unprecedented use of terrorism powers

The decision to proscribe Palestine Action is unprecedented, marking the first time the Government has applied anti-terrorism laws to a domestic protest group in this way. The Home Office’s own Proscription Review Group reportedly acknowledged that national security concerns were limited, and critics say the decision appears to have been driven by political considerations linked to the ongoing war in Gaza.

The full judicial review will now examine whether the Home Secretary acted lawfully, rationally, and proportionately in making the ban. It is expected to scrutinise the Government’s reliance on incidents of property damage, the adequacy of its national security assessment, and whether the proscription unlawfully infringes on rights to protest.

A date for the trial has not yet been fixed, but it is likely to take place later this year.

How Palestine Action’s legal challenge works

What is being challenged?

Palestine Action is challenging the Home Secretary’s decision to place the group on the UK’s official list of proscribed terrorist organisations. This means it is a criminal offence to be a member, support it publicly, or even express sympathy for it

How are such bans usually challenged?

Normally, the law requires challenges to go through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) — a specialist tribunal set up by Parliament to handle appeals against proscription.

Why is this case different?

Huda Ammori’s legal team has chosen to bring a judicial review in the High Court instead. They argue the ban is so disproportionate and such a blatant breach of free speech rights that it should be tested openly, not only in the restricted POAC process

What will the court decide?

The High Court will examine:

• Whether the Home Secretary acted lawfully and rationally in making the ban.
• Whether the ban is proportionate given the nature of the group’s activities.
• Whether it unlawfully interferes with rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

Why is this significant?

This is the first time a UK protest group has been banned using anti-terrorism powers.

• If Ammori wins, it could force the Government to lift the ban.
• A ruling against the Home Secretary could set an important legal precedent limiting how such powers can be used in future.

What happens next?

The full judicial review is expected to be heard later this year.
If Ammori loses, she could still take her case to POAC or appeal further up the court system, potentially as far as the Supreme Court.