The Court of Appeal has heard arguments that the ban on Palestine Action created a “culture of fear” among those campaigning for Palestinian rights, while the Home Secretary continues to challenge a ruling that deemed the proscription unlawful.
Legal Challenge Over Protest Group Ban
Shabana Mahmood is appealing a February High Court decision which found that the proscription of Palestine Action represented a “very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of assembly and speech. The High Court also determined that the ban was a breach of the Home Secretary’s own policy regarding proscription.
The ban remains in effect while the appeal is pending. This case is particularly significant as Palestine Action is the first direct action protest group to be proscribed, and the first such ban based on serious damage to property.
Arguments for the Home Secretary
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Secretary, argued in written submissions that the High Court’s conclusion—that human rights interference outweighed the necessity of the ban—was “overstated and wrong.” He maintained that the Home Secretary possesses “broad discretion” on counter-terrorism and that her policy was not intended to “straitjacket” her.
Eadie asserted that individuals associating with the group should not be viewed as undertaking peaceful protest, but rather as supporting a “terrorist group” whose activities are inconsistent with the rule of law and democratic values.
He further stated that Parliament intended for proscribed organizations to be “deprived of the oxygen of publicity and support,” and noted that it remains open for people to protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza and support the Palestinian cause.
Claims of a “Culture of Fear”
Raza Husain, representing co-founder Huda Ammori, argued that the proscription has led to the “total destruction” of a group with significant popular support that sought to prevent atrocity crimes by Israel against Palestinians.
Husain told the court that the ban has chilled free speech and assembly, leading organizations and individuals to self-censor. He alleged that police have been stopping, questioning, and arresting pro-Palestine protesters—sometimes based on an erroneous understanding of the law—regardless of any actual association with Palestine Action, including individuals simply wearing keffiyahs or other insignia of solidarity.
The submissions further argued that the Home Secretary should have explored less restrictive measures, especially considering that targeted organizations, including Elbit Systems UK, were “alleged to have been involved in serious criminality” regarding the assault on Gaza.
Next Steps in the Proceedings
The hearing is being overseen by a panel of five judges, led by the Lady Chief Justice, rather than the standard three-judge panel.
Proceedings are expected to conclude on Thursday. At that point, the proceedings will move into private, and the judgment will be reserved until a later date.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the High Court originally rule the ban unlawful?
The High Court found that the proscription of Palestine Action was a breach of the Home Secretary’s own policy and represented a “very significant interference” with the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
What are the consequences for those supporting the group?
As the ban remains in place pending the appeal, membership is a criminal offense. More than 3,000 people have already been arrested under the act for holding placards expressing support for Palestine Action.
Who is overseeing the Court of Appeal hearing?
The hearing is being led by the Lady Chief Justice and a panel of five judges.
Do you believe the designation of direct action groups under terrorism laws is a necessary security measure or a threat to the right to protest?
