Palestine Action terror ban is lawful, judges rule in victory for Home Office

7 hours ago

Dominic Casciani, Home and legal correspondent and

Amy Walker

PA Media

A number of people gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday as the ruling was made

The government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organisation is lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In one of the most significant rulings on national security in recent years, five of the most senior judges in the country overturned an earlier decision from the High Court that the ban had breached the right to protest and had been incorrectly taken by ministers.

But five Court of Appeal judges concluded in a hearing on Monday that the ban had been "justified and proportionate".

In a statement, the group's co-founder Huda Ammori said she intended to appeal the ruling to the UK Supreme Court - although it's not clear at this stage whether it would consider the case.

Palestine Action has remained banned since the High Court ruling in February to allow for further legal arguments and give the government time to consider an appeal.

The proscription made it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Thousands of people have been arrested at demonstrations in the months since the ban came into force in July last year.

After the ruling on Monday, the Metropolitan Police said 117 people had been arrested on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation at a protest outside London's Royal Courts of Justice, while City of London police made two further arrests near the Old Bailey.

Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr and four other judges said that the government's policy on banning terrorism groups meant the home secretary had been legally entitled to decide the group should be proscribed.

She said the judges recognised the proscription of an organisation like Palestine Acton was "highly controversial" and that it was supported by "many otherwise lawful citizens".

But Baroness Carr added that it was "a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism".

"It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open," she added.

"It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury."

She said the group had neither disowned nor condemned three incidents which took place before the ban was implemented and were judged by ministers to amount to terrorism.

PA Media

Baroness Carr said Palestine Action "overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism"

The threats posed by Palestine Action had been the most important factor in the lawful decision-making, Baroness Carr said, including how the group clandestinely organised and targeted lawful businesses.

That included defence firms involved in UK national defence and assisting Ukraine. The home secretary had been best placed to judge the impact of those threats, said the court.

Ammori had challenged the ban on the argument that the-then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had not followed her own internal rules - and that the ban also amounted to a serious interference with the right to protest.

The High Court decided the home secretary's policy on bans was designed to limit her discretion - but the government appealed that, saying she had been entitled to take into account the benefits of targeting and curtailing the group with terrorism legislation.

The Court of Appeal agreed, adding that the government was generally better placed than the courts in deciding matters of national security. While the court was the ultimate arbiter, judges had to recognise that ministers must have a wide margin within which to act in this complex field.

Ammori said Palestine Action was "surprised by today's judgment" after judges in the High Court previously ruled the government "acted unlawfully in proscribing Palestine Action because of the significant interference with the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly".

She added: "We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history."

The five judges indicated that the case had been legally complex - often a signal that the Supreme Court needs to clarify what the law means in a particular area - but at the same time they did not certify that the issues were so unclear that a final review should go ahead.

"They [Palestine Action] have to get permission to appeal. The Supreme Court doesn't hear every case, and it's difficult to know whether they'll get permission," said Jonathan Metzer, a barrister who specialises in cases about government decisions.

'Fundamentally this court has said that the court below, the High Court, didn't show enough attention to the margin of discretion the government has when concerned with matters of n…