Auto Amazon Links: No products found.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the government’s designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, ruling the ban lawful. This marks a major legal development in the area of national security after five senior judges overturned a previous High Court decision. The earlier ruling had found the proscription infringed on the right to protest and was improperly authorised by ministers. However, the appellate judges concluded that the ban was both “justified and proportionate.”
Palestine Action’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, announced plans to appeal the decision to the UK Supreme Court, though it remains uncertain whether the higher court will take up the case. The group has been under prohibition since February when the High Court’s temporary ruling allowed further legal debate and government consideration of an appeal. The proscription criminalises membership or support of the organisation, carrying penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Since the ban was enacted last July, thousands have faced arrest during demonstrations connected to the group.
Following Monday’s judgment, the Metropolitan Police reported 117 arrests related to suspected support for a proscribed entity during protests outside London’s Royal Courts of Justice, with an additional two arrests nearby made by the City of London police. Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, speaking on behalf of the court, acknowledged the controversial nature of banning Palestine Action, noting that many law-abiding citizens back the group. Nevertheless, she stated, “it was a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism.” She contrasted the group with historical civil disobedience movements, saying, “It is not… a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open,” but rather “a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury.”
Baroness Carr emphasised that Palestine Action had neither condemned nor distanced itself from three pre-ban violent incidents deemed terrorist acts by the government. The court judged that the threats posed by the group—especially its secretive organisation and targeting of legal businesses, including defence companies involved in UK national security and support for Ukraine—were central to the lawful delegation of authority to the Home Secretary. Ammori’s initial challenge argued that the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, did not adhere to internal guidelines, and that banning the group violated fundamental rights to protest. While the High Court had limited ministerial discretion on proscription, the government disputed this, asserting its right to use terrorism legislation to curb the group’s activities. The Court of Appeal sided with the government, emphasizing ministers’ broad discretion in sensitive national security matters.
Ammori expressed surprise at the Court of Appeal’s ruling, citing the prior High Court decision that found the ban unlawful due to the “significant interference with the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.” She vowed, “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 appellate judges described the case as legally complex but stopped short of certifying that a final determination by the Supreme Court was necessary. Legal expert Jonathan Metzer remarked that Palestine Action would require permission to appeal, noting that the Supreme Court does not accept every case. He further explained the appellate court’s view that the High Court had insufficiently recognized the government’s wide margin of discretion concerning national security, an area in which the Home Secretary is specially competent. The involvement of five senior judges, including the Lady Chief Justice, and the detailed nature of the judgment suggest that the Supreme Court may decide the matter has been sufficiently addressed.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood welcomed the ruling, clarifying that it “does not affect lawful protest in support of the Palestinian cause.” She condemned Palestine Action’s conduct, describing their actions as “not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.” Mahmood accused the group of having “carried out acts of terrorism, celebrated those who have taken part in those acts and promoted the use of violence,” asserting firmly that Palestine Action is “not an ordinary protest or civil disobedience group.”
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found.