Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules
The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression.
And in a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said that two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable'.
In his ruling, he said that it was 'reasonably arguable' that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.'
The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', was also 'reasonably arguable'.
He said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.'
He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.'
Following the ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.'
She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.'
Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'.
Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.'
The Home Office is defending the legal action.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription.
He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.'
Previously, 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.
Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC.
Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer.
He said: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.'
In his judgment, he said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court.
'That would be a recipe for chaos.
'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.'
Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Live
23 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
Police launch investigation after Colwyn Bay man dies from head injury
Police are investigating after a Colwyn Bay man died from a head injury. An inquest was opened today [Monday] into the death of 46-year-old David William Hardman who died in Glan Clwyd Hospital, Bodelwyddan, on July 26. John Gittins, senior coroner for North Wales East and Central, said he had been told by North Wales Police that a disturbance had occurred at Mr Hardman's home in Coed y Glyn, Colwyn Bay. On July 22 Mr Hardman, a telephone engineer, was taken to hospital but later discharged. He then complained of feeling unwell and returned to hospital, but died in the early hours of the following day. Home Office pathologist Dr Brian Rodgers gave the provisional cause of death as a massive subdural hematoma due to a severe blunt force injury. Adjourning the inquest to a date to be fixed, the coroner said that investigations were continuing. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox Why journalists cover inquests and why it's crucial that we do Reporting on an inquest can be one of the hardest types of stories a journalist can write. More often than not, they are emotionally charged proceedings attended by grief-stricken people who are desperate for answers. Sometimes, inquests can seem quite clinical due to a coroner's need to remain impartial and level-headed so that they can draw a conclusion from desperately sad events. As painful as these proceedings are for those who have lost a loved one, the lessons that can be learned from inquests can go a long way to saving others' lives. Families are often surprised - and sometimes angry - when they see a reporter in attendance. Understandably they worry the nature of their loved one's death will be sensationalised and that a news story will forever tarnish their memory. Responsible and ethically minded journalists will do what they can to report inquests sensitively, while not shying away from the often upsetting facts. It is vital that the public don't forget that inquests are a type of judicial inquiry; they are after all held in a coroner's court. The press has a legal right to attend inquests and has a responsibility to report on them as part of their duty to uphold the principle of 'open justice'. But in doing so journalists must follow the guidance provided by the Independent Press Standards Organisation and set out in Editors' Code of Conduct. It's a journalist's duty to make sure the public understands the reasons why someone has died and to make sure their deaths are not kept secret. An inquest report can also clear up any rumours or suspicion surrounding a person's death. But most importantly of all, an inquest report can draw attention to circumstances which may stop further deaths from happening. Inquests are not criminal courts - there is no prosecution or defence - they are fact-finding tribunals which seek to answer four key questions: Who is the person who died? Where did they die? When did they die? How did they die? They do not apportion blame. Once these questions are answered a coroner will be able to record a conclusion. The wider lessons that can be learned from an inquest can have far-reaching consequences - but if journalists do not attend them how can the public be made aware? The harsh reality is they can't. Coroners often do not publish the results of an inquest. Should journalists shy away from attending inquests then an entire arm of the judicial system - and numerous others who need to answer vital questions - is not held to account. Inquests can often prompt a wider discussion on serious issues, the most recent of these being mental health and suicide. Editors actively ask and encourage reporters to speak to the family and friends of a person who is the subject of an inquest. Their contributions help us create a clearer picture of the person who died and also provides the opportunity to pay tribute to their loved one. Often families do not wish to speak to the press and of course that decision has to be respected. However, as has been seen by many brilliant campaigns run by newspapers and websites up and down the country, the input of a person's family and friends can make all the difference in helping to save others. Without the attendance of the press at inquests questions will remain unanswered, debates unargued and lives lost.
BBC News
23 minutes ago
- BBC News
Man remanded in custody over Palestine Action RAF break-in
A man has been remanded in custody over his alleged involvement in a demonstration that saw two military aircraft damaged at RAF Brize Umer Khalid, 22, faces charges relating to criminal damage and compromising the security of the United incident in June saw a group of protesters break into the Oxfordshire air base and spray paint on two RAF Voyager planes, causing what police said was £7m of Action claimed the incident, saying it was a protest against the UK's weapons sales to Israel. The group was proscribed as a terrorist organisation soon after. Mr Khalid appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court wearing a black hoodie and grey tracksuit. He spoke only to confirm his name and Peter Ratliff told the court the alleged offending happened at about 01:40 BST on the morning of 20 jet engines, one on each Voyager aircraft, had to be replaced following the incident at a cost of £2.5m each, the court heard. Fire extinguishers marked with the words Palestine Action and Palestinian flags were recovered at the court heard Mr Khalid, of Stockport, was born in Manchester and was a British citizen. He was arrested at an address in Bedford on was denied bail and was remanded in custody for his next appearance at the Old Bailey on 22 Khalid is the fifth person to be charged in connection with the Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22, were all remanded in custody following a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court last will next appear together at the Old Bailey for a plea hearing on January 16, 2026. A provisional trial date is set for 18 January, 2027.
Powys County Times
25 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
No 10 declines to say if Palestine to be recognised with Hamas in power
Downing Street declined to say whether Britain would recognise Palestine with Hamas still in power after the militant group reportedly described statehood as 'one of the fruits of October 7'. Number 10 also refused to be drawn on whether the release of all Israeli hostages was a condition for recognition, but insisted they must be freed 'unconditionally and immediately'. Concerns have been raised over the UK's plans to recognise a Palestinian state after Hamas member Ghazi Hamad appeared to claim the 'fruits' of October 7 had caused the world to 'open its eyes to the Palestinian issue'. Asked on Monday whether formalising the move without a ceasefire could embolden Hamas to hold onto Israeli captives, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said the Government would assess the situation in September. 'The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that, on October 7, Hamas perpetrated the worst massacre in Israel's history,' he said. 'Every day since then that horror has continued… as the Foreign Secretary said over the weekend, Hamas are rightly pariahs who can have no role in Gaza's future.' Asked whether a Palestinian state could be recognised while Hamas are still holding hostages, the spokesman said that 'we'll make an assessment ahead of the UN General Assembly on how far the parties have met the steps that we've set out'. 'We've been very clear that Hamas can have no role in the future governments of Gaza… We've also been clear that they must disarm, must release all the hostages. On whether the step could be taken while Hamas remain in power, the official said the Government was clear that 'Hamas are not the Palestinian people'. 'It is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to have recognition along the lines and the steps that we've previously set out,' he said. 'We've also been very clear it cannot be in the hands of Hamas, a terrorist group, to have a veto over recognition of Palestine.' Videos released by militant groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad last week appeared to show Israeli hostages in a visibly fragile state. Number 10 condemned the images as 'completely abhorrent'. Meanwhile, Mr Hamad reportedly told the Al Jazeera news outlet: 'The initiative by several countries to recognise a Palestinian state is one of the fruits of October 7.' About 1,200 people were killed by Hamas militants in the 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the war and another 251 were abducted. Israel's retaliatory military offensive has killed more than 60,800 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry. The ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count, but its figures are seen by the UN and other independent experts as the most reliable count of casualties. The UK and Jordan have been working together to air drop aid amid warnings of widespread malnourishment in Gaza. It comes as Britain seeks to put pressure on Israel to change course with a plan to recognise a Palestinian state in September ahead of the UN General Assembly. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months.
