The High Court has dramatically ruled that banning Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was unlawful – delivering a stinging rebuke to the Home Secretary.
Judges found that the proscription, which categorised the protest group alongside the likes of Islamic State, was disproportionate.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood immediately announced her plan to appeal the court’s decision.
Palestine Action founder Huda Ammori said: ‘This is a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.’
Following a number of high-profile violent protests, including criminal damage to a UK-based defence company that makes weapons for Israel, the group was proscribed on 5 July last year.
Being a member of, or showing support for, the group became an offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
More than 2,000 people were later arrested, including priests, teachers, pensioners, retired British Army officers and an 81-year-old former magistrate.
About a hundred people gathered outside the High Court building in central London cheering and chanting ‘Free Palestine’ as the decision was announced.
Palestine Action co-founders Richard Barnard (left) and Huda Ammori (right) won their appeal against their group’s proscription
Supporters of the group celebrated the decision outside the High Court in London
Some held signs saying ‘Up Yours Cooper’, a reference to former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper who implemented the ban on Palestine Action
Supporters of Palestine Action gathered at the High Court
One protester dressed as the grim reaper outside the court where judges ruled proscribing Palestine Action was unlawful
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was disappointed with the court’s decision and plans to appeal it
The three judges, led by Dame Victoria Sharp, said in their judgment that banning the group was an ‘very significant’ interference with its members’ right to protest under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
They said the Home Secretary had wrongly applied her own policy when deciding to proscribe the group.
Under that policy, she should have considered the specific threat the organisation posed to the UK, but instead relied on the additional ‘advantage’ that proscription would give police extra powers to disrupt the group.
In an obvious rebuke to the Home Secretary, the judges went further and ruled that proscribing Palestine Action was ‘disproportionate’.
‘At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality,’ they said. ‘A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action.
‘For those actions, regardless of proscription, the criminal law is available to prosecute those concerned. If those involved are convicted they face the prospect of significant punishment, which would serve as a significant deterrent to others.’
However, the judges added: ‘The claimant…has sought to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation. This is not a sustainable proposition.’
The court previously heard Palestine Action had an ‘Underground Manual’, which provided members with guidance on how to cause the maximum amount of disruption.
The judges said: ‘It contains an unmistakable invitation to individuals to group together to commit acts of criminal damage. This is not limited to symbolic acts.
‘Palestine Action encourages those who read the Underground Manual to “be creative” and to “disrupt damage or destroy” targets without restraint.’
Despite their ruling, the ban will remain in place to allow the Government time to consider an appeal.
Home Secretary Ms Mahmood immediately announced her decision to fight back, saying: ‘I am disappointed by the court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate.
‘The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by Parliament. The proscription does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the Court agrees.
‘Home Secretaries must retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the Court of Appeal.’
During a judicial review hearing in November, Ms Ammori argued that the ban was a disproportionate interference with free speech and protest rights.
She claimed the group had engaged in an ‘honourable tradition’ of direct action and civil disobedience.
The Home Office said proscribing the group had the intended effect of disrupting its ‘pattern of escalatory conduct’ and had ‘not prevented people from protesting in favour of the Palestinian people or against Israel’s actions in Gaza’.
Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International said: ‘Today’s ruling is a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack.
‘The High Court’s decision sends a clear message: the Government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter‑terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent.’
