{"id":59756,"date":"2026-06-16T10:14:37","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T18:14:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=59756"},"modified":"2026-06-16T10:14:37","modified_gmt":"2026-06-16T18:14:37","slug":"uks-renewed-ban-on-palestine-action-confirms-legal-overreach-in-the-designation-of-terrorism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2026\/06\/16\/uks-renewed-ban-on-palestine-action-confirms-legal-overreach-in-the-designation-of-terrorism\/","title":{"rendered":"UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted from Andy Worthington\u2019s website<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

In a dispiriting ruling<\/a> yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government\u2019s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

A mass protest in support of Palestine Action in Parliament Square on August 9, 2025, at which 474 peaceful protestors holding up placards were arrested. (Photo: Andy Worthington).<\/p><\/div>\n

The High Court\u2019s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action\u2019s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.<\/p>\n

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained<\/a> that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court \u201cupheld the Claimant\u2019s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action\u201d, and, secondly, that \u201cproscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary\u2019s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had \u201cadopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy\u201d, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her \u201cexpert\u201d advisers from the police and the intelligence services.<\/p>\n

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were \u201crequired to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence\u201d \u2014 yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! \u2014 and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that \u201cThe Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as \u201cquestions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)\u201d, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving \u201cthe rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action\u201d, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested \u2014 although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a \u201ccriminal act.\u201d They also acknowledged \u201cthe \u2018chilling effect\u2019 that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The Court of Appeal delivering its ruling, in my post on Substack<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

In the end, however, they came down heavily in favour of the government\u2019s position, providing a roll-call of Palestine Action\u2019s operations, interpreted through the darkest of lenses, and also defending what they evidently regard as the inalienable right of arms companies to conduct their business unmolested.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s that roll-call:<\/p>\n