High Court to hear bid to challenge Palestine Action ban

The co-founder of the proscribed group Palestine Action is set to ask the High Court for the green light to challenge the Home Secretary’s decision to ban the organisation at a hearing on Monday.

Huda Ammori is seeking to challenge Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under anti-terror laws, after the group claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20.

On July 4, Ms Ammori failed in a High Court bid to temporarily block the ban coming into effect, with the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge to that decision less than two hours before the proscription came into force on July 5.

The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000.

[mid-content-banner]

Vandalism 

The UK Government is opposing the bid for the legal challenge to be allowed to proceed, with the hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain due to begin at 10.30am on Monday at the Royal Courts of Justice.

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

Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident, and are due to face trial in early 2027.

Since the ban came into force, dozens of people have been arrested at protests in cities including London, Manchester and Cardiff, including an 83-year-old reverend.

At the hearing earlier this month, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the proscription was an “ill-considered, discriminatory and authoritarian abuse of statutory power”.

[lower-mid-content-banner]

'Far-reaching'

He also said that the Home Office “has still not sufficiently articulated or evidenced a national security reason that proscription should be brought into effect now”.

Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, also representing Ms Ammori, told the court that the harm caused by the ban would be “far-reaching” and could cause “irreparable harm to large numbers of members of the public”, including causing some to “self-censor”.

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.

Mr Justice Chamberlain said that an assessment on whether to ban the group had been made as early as March, and “preceded” the incident at RAF Brize Norton.

Dismissing the bid for a temporary block, the judge said that the “harm which would ensue” if a block was not ordered was “insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force”.

He added that some of the “consequences feared by the claimant” were “overstated”.

At a late-night Court of Appeal hearing, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis threw out a bid to challenge the High Court’s decision, finding that there was “no real prospect of a successful appeal”.