Court of Appeal grants judicial review for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori

The below content has been reproduced from a Garden Court North Chambers release.

On 17 October, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori could pursue a judicial review against the organisation’s proscription by the Home Office.

Three judges, including the Lady Chief Justice, Sue Carr, upheld Mr Justice Chamberlain’s decision to grant the judicial review in July. In September, the Home Office appealed on the basis that Ms Ammori could applying to the Secretary of State to “deproscribe”, then appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (“POAC”) against any refusal of that application.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Chamberlain was entitled to conclude that a POAC application was not an adequate remedy in the circumstances of this case. Reasons for this included the need for expediency, because of the number of people charged under terrorism legislation in connection with alleged support of Palestine Action.

The substantive hearing for this judicial review is set to be heard from 25-27 November.

Two further legal grounds granted

Ms Ammori’s legal representatives cross-appealed the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review on four grounds.

The Court of Appeal granted two further grounds on which to challenge the legality of the ban, in addition to the two already granted by Justice Chamberlain.

The first of these further grounds was that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to relevant considerations when reaching her decision to proscribe Palestine Action. The argument on behalf of Ms Ammori is that these considerations include that persons associated with Palestine Action engage in a range of tactics and methods including many low-level demonstrations and campaigns which do not pass the threshold for criminal liability, and the level of widespread and mainstream support which Palestine Action has garnered within the wider movement for Palestinian rights and the general public.

Secondly, that the Secretary of State failed to follow her published policy which prescribes that certain factors may be taken into account. The policy requires that a proscription decision which is otherwise legally compliant also be “proportionate.”

The third ground granted by the Court of Appeal upholding Mr Justice Chamberlain’s conclusion, was that the power to add Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisation was used for an improper purpose. The argument on behalf of Ms Ammori is that the proscription of a direct action civil disobedience network such as Palestine Action is beyond the scope of Parliament’s intended use of the proscription regime and contrary to its intended purpose.

Fourthly, that the Secretary of State breached section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). The case for Ms Ammori is that the Home Secretary has breached the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in failing to consider the impact of the proscription of Palestine Action, including the criminalisation of support for Palestine Action, on relevant groups, including Palestinians in the United Kingdom, and to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations.

These grounds will be argued in the substantive judicial review hearing at the end of November.

Garden Court’s Owen Greenhall & Audrey Cherryl Mogan are led by Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC & Raza Husain KC of Matrix Chambers, alongside Garden Court North’s Mira Hammad & Rosalind Burgin, and Grant Kynaston & Paul Luckhurst (Blackstone Chambers). They are instructed by Birnberg Peirce and Kellys Solicitors.

The above content has been reproduced from a Garden Court North Chambers release.
For further information, please contact Alex Blair at Garden Court North: ablair@gcnchambers.co.uk

Additional media

• The Guardian – Legal challenge to Palestine Action ban can go ahead, court rules
• High Court – Ammori v SSHD Approved Judgment 300725