The Court of Appeal has upheld the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, overturning a February High Court ruling that had found the ban unlawful.
The judgment marks a significant appellate ruling on the limits of executive discretion, protest rights and the proportionality framework courts must apply when national security decisions interfere with Convention rights. The five-judge court, led by Lady Chief Justice Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill and including the Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos, allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal in full.
The case was brought by Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, who challenged the Secretary of State’s decision of 20 June 2025 to add the group to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. The order came into force on 5 July 2025 after approval by both Houses of Parliament.
In February, the Divisional Court quashed the proscription on two grounds, finding that the Home Secretary had misapplied her own Proscription Policy and had acted disproportionately in relation to rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal rejected that analysis.
On the policy issue, the court found that the Proscription Policy was not intended to confine the Home Secretary’s statutory discretion in the detailed way adopted by the Divisional Court. The Home Secretary was entitled to consider the operational benefits of proscription, including disruption of recruitment, financing and organisation, alongside the conduct relied on to justify the ban.
On proportionality, the court held that the Home Secretary had been entitled to give substantial weight to national security, public safety and the future risk assessment before her. The judges accepted that proscription carried a chilling effect for protest and political expression, but found that the impact was justified in light of Palestine Action’s escalating conduct and the risks identified by counter-terrorism agencies.
The ruling has immediate consequences for criminal practitioners, police forces and prosecutors handling cases linked to Palestine Action. Proscription restores the full effect of offences under sections 11 to 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, including offences relating to membership, support and displaying articles associated with a proscribed organisation.
For public law practitioners, the judgment is likely to be closely read for its treatment of policy interpretation, institutional competence and judicial review of national security decisions. For in-house counsel, the case also underlines how protest activity directed at defence, finance and corporate targets can create legal and operational exposure beyond the organisations immediately involved.
The Government Legal Department represented the Home Secretary, led by Sir James Eadie KC. Huda Ammori was represented by Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, with Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC among counsel instructed. Amnesty International UK, Liberty and the UN Special Rapporteur intervened.
A further appeal remains possible, meaning the Court of Appeal’s ruling may not be the final word on how far terrorism legislation can be used against direct-action protest groups.