Divisional Court rules that the proscription of Palestine Action, the direct action group, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Palestine Action (PA) is a direct action protest group concerned with changing opinions and policies with regards to Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. It claims Elbit Systems, Israel\u2019s largest military manufacturer, as its main target. In June 2025, members of PA gained access to RAF Brize Norton and spray painted two RAF planes. Following this, on the 30th of June, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper put forward a proscription order which went into effect from the 5th of July. From the moment of PA\u2019s proscription, over 2700 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act, mostly for supporting PA whilst it was proscribed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
The Divisional Court, consisting of the President of the King\u2019s Bench Division Mrs. Victoria Sharp, Mr. Justice Smith and Mrs. Justice Steyn, decided that the proscription of PA was unlawful. The court allowed the claim on two grounds: ground 6 (that the Home Secretary breached her own policy on when to apply discretion in proscription matters) and ground 2 (that the decision was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The key consideration in discussing Ground 6 was the extent to which discretion should be exercised when considering the proscription of an organisation. The proscription policy states that the Home Secretary will consider other factors when deciding on proscription. The other factors include the \u201cnature and scale\u201d of the organisation and the threat the organisation poses to the UK. The court found that the Home Secretary was reliant on the fact that proscription would be advantageous as it would allow for the prosecution of supporters of PA under sections 11 and 13 of the Terrorism Act. The court concluded that the purpose of the policy was to limit the Home Secretary\u2019s power to proscribe and therefore the use of this additional factor as a justification for proscription was unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ground 2 concerned the HRA and the proportionality of proscription when balanced against the rights of citizens to engage in protected acts. The court made it clear that \u201cat its core [PA] is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and the encouragement of criminality\u201d but came to the conclusion that as \u201ca very small number of its actions amounted to terrorist action\u201d it was still disproportionate to proscribe the organisation. The court noted that criminal law provides ample deterrent to others and that the PA\u2019s activities (insofar as they are acts of terrorism) \u201chave not yet reached the level, scale and persistence\u201d that justifies the consequences of proscription, and the requisite Convention rights interference that proscription would entail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court rejected Ground 8, that the Home Secretary should have given PA the opportunity to make representations challenging the proscription before putting the Order of Proscription before Parliament, and Ground 5, that the Home Secretary failed to regard relevant considerations when deciding to proscribe PA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
All parties were represented by Chambers ranked lawyers ranked in a range of practice areas. You can see the rankings for these areas by clicking the following links: Civil Liberties & Human Rights<\/a>, Protest Law<\/a>, Administrative & Public Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The claimant (Huda Ammori) was represented by Raza Husain KC<\/a> and Blinne N\u00ed Ghr\u00e1laigh KC<\/a> of Matrix Chambers, Paul Luckhurst<\/a>, Rayan Fakhoury<\/a> and Grant Kyanston of Blackstone Chambers, Owen Greenall<\/a> and Audrey Cheryl Morgan<\/a> of Garden Court Chambers and Mira Hammad<\/a> and Rosalind Burgin<\/a> of Garden Court North Chambers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defendant (SSHD) was represented by Sir James Eadie KC<\/a> of Blackstone Chambers and David Blundell KC<\/a> and Karl Laird<\/a> of Landmark Chambers, Andrew Deakin<\/a> of 39 Essex Chambers, Natasha Barnes<\/a> of 1 Crown Office Row, and Steven Kosmin<\/a> of 11KBW.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The special advocates for the claimant were Tim Buley KC<\/a> of Landmark Chambers, Dominic Lewis<\/a> of 5 Paper Buildings and Jesse Nichols<\/a> of Matrix Chambers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first intervenor (UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism) was represented by Adam Straw KC<\/a> and Rabah Kherbane<\/a> of Doughty Street Chambers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second (Amnesty International UK) and third (Liberty) intervenors were represented by Tom Hickman KC<\/a> of Blackstone and Jessica Jones<\/a> and Rosalind Comyn<\/a> of Matrix Chambers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","categories":[],"tags":[],"publication":[],"blocks":[{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Divisional Court rules that the proscription of Palestine Action, the direct action group, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n Divisional Court rules that the proscription of Palestine Action, the direct action group, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Background","headerLevel":"3","blockId":"d9pSj","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-d9pSj"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Palestine Action (PA) is a direct action protest group concerned with changing opinions and policies with regards to Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. It claims Elbit Systems, Israel\u2019s largest military manufacturer, as its main target. In June 2025, members of PA gained access to RAF Brize Norton and spray painted two RAF planes. Following this, on the 30th of June, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper put forward a proscription order which went into effect from the 5th of July. From the moment of PA\u2019s proscription, over 2700 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act, mostly for supporting PA whilst it was proscribed.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n Palestine Action (PA) is a direct action protest group concerned with changing opinions and policies with regards to Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. It claims Elbit Systems, Israel\u2019s largest military manufacturer, as its main target. In June 2025, members of PA gained access to RAF Brize Norton and spray painted two RAF planes. Following this, on the 30th of June, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper put forward a proscription order which went into effect from the 5th of July. From the moment of PA\u2019s proscription, over 2700 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act, mostly for supporting PA whilst it was proscribed.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Judgement","headerLevel":"3","blockId":"23q4s1","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-23q4s1"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The Divisional Court, consisting of the President of the King\u2019s Bench Division Mrs. Victoria Sharp, Mr. Justice Smith and Mrs. Justice Steyn, decided that the proscription of PA was unlawful. The court allowed the claim on two grounds: ground 6 (that the Home Secretary breached her own policy on when to apply discretion in proscription matters) and ground 2 (that the decision was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998).<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The Divisional Court, consisting of the President of the King\u2019s Bench Division Mrs. Victoria Sharp, Mr. Justice Smith and Mrs. Justice Steyn, decided that the proscription of PA was unlawful. The court allowed the claim on two grounds: ground 6 (that the Home Secretary breached her own policy on when to apply discretion in proscription matters) and ground 2 (that the decision was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998).<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The key consideration in discussing Ground 6 was the extent to which discretion should be exercised when considering the proscription of an organisation. The proscription policy states that the Home Secretary will consider other factors when deciding on proscription. The other factors include the \u201cnature and scale\u201d of the organisation and the threat the organisation poses to the UK. The court found that the Home Secretary was reliant on the fact that proscription would be advantageous as it would allow for the prosecution of supporters of PA under sections 11 and 13 of the Terrorism Act. The court concluded that the purpose of the policy was to limit the Home Secretary\u2019s power to proscribe and therefore the use of this additional factor as a justification for proscription was unlawful.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The key consideration in discussing Ground 6 was the extent to which discretion should be exercised when considering the proscription of an organisation. The proscription policy states that the Home Secretary will consider other factors when deciding on proscription. The other factors include the \u201cnature and scale\u201d of the organisation and the threat the organisation poses to the UK. The court found that the Home Secretary was reliant on the fact that proscription would be advantageous as it would allow for the prosecution of supporters of PA under sections 11 and 13 of the Terrorism Act. The court concluded that the purpose of the policy was to limit the Home Secretary\u2019s power to proscribe and therefore the use of this additional factor as a justification for proscription was unlawful.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n Ground 2 concerned the HRA and the proportionality of proscription when balanced against the rights of citizens to engage in protected acts. The court made it clear that \u201cat its core [PA] is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and the encouragement of criminality\u201d but came to the conclusion that as \u201ca very small number of its actions amounted to terrorist action\u201d it was still disproportionate to proscribe the organisation. The court noted that criminal law provides ample deterrent to others and that the PA\u2019s activities (insofar as they are acts of terrorism) \u201chave not yet reached the level, scale and persistence\u201d that justifies the consequences of proscription, and the requisite Convention rights interference that proscription would entail.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n Ground 2 concerned the HRA and the proportionality of proscription when balanced against the rights of citizens to engage in protected acts. The court made it clear that \u201cat its core [PA] is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and the encouragement of criminality\u201d but came to the conclusion that as \u201ca very small number of its actions amounted to terrorist action\u201d it was still disproportionate to proscribe the organisation. The court noted that criminal law provides ample deterrent to others and that the PA\u2019s activities (insofar as they are acts of terrorism) \u201chave not yet reached the level, scale and persistence\u201d that justifies the consequences of proscription, and the requisite Convention rights interference that proscription would entail.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The court rejected Ground 8, that the Home Secretary should have given PA the opportunity to make representations challenging the proscription before putting the Order of Proscription before Parliament, and Ground 5, that the Home Secretary failed to regard relevant considerations when deciding to proscribe PA.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The court rejected Ground 8, that the Home Secretary should have given PA the opportunity to make representations challenging the proscription before putting the Order of Proscription before Parliament, and Ground 5, that the Home Secretary failed to regard relevant considerations when deciding to proscribe PA.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"lazyblock\/chambers-header","attrs":{"header":"The Parties","headerLevel":"3","blockId":"Zo1N5X","blockUniqueClass":"lazyblock-chambers-header-Zo1N5X"},"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"","innerContent":[]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n All parties were represented by Chambers ranked lawyers ranked in a range of practice areas. You can see the rankings for these areas by clicking the following links: Civil Liberties & Human Rights<\/a>, Protest Law<\/a>, Administrative & Public Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n All parties were represented by Chambers ranked lawyers ranked in a range of practice areas. You can see the rankings for these areas by clicking the following links: Civil Liberties & Human Rights<\/a>, Protest Law<\/a>, Administrative & Public Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The claimant (Huda Ammori) was represented by Raza Husain KC<\/a> and Blinne N\u00ed Ghr\u00e1laigh KC<\/a> of Matrix Chambers, Paul Luckhurst<\/a>, Rayan Fakhoury<\/a> and Grant Kyanston of Blackstone Chambers, Owen Greenall<\/a> and Audrey Cheryl Morgan<\/a> of Garden Court Chambers and Mira Hammad<\/a> and Rosalind Burgin<\/a> of Garden Court North Chambers.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The claimant (Huda Ammori) was represented by Raza Husain KC<\/a> and Blinne N\u00ed Ghr\u00e1laigh KC<\/a> of Matrix Chambers, Paul Luckhurst<\/a>, Rayan Fakhoury<\/a> and Grant Kyanston of Blackstone Chambers, Owen Greenall<\/a> and Audrey Cheryl Morgan<\/a> of Garden Court Chambers and Mira Hammad<\/a> and Rosalind Burgin<\/a> of Garden Court North Chambers.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The defendant (SSHD) was represented by Sir James Eadie KC<\/a> of Blackstone Chambers and David Blundell KC<\/a> and Karl Laird<\/a> of Landmark Chambers, Andrew Deakin<\/a> of 39 Essex Chambers, Natasha Barnes<\/a> of 1 Crown Office Row, and Steven Kosmin<\/a> of 11KBW.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The defendant (SSHD) was represented by Sir James Eadie KC<\/a> of Blackstone Chambers and David Blundell KC<\/a> and Karl Laird<\/a> of Landmark Chambers, Andrew Deakin<\/a> of 39 Essex Chambers, Natasha Barnes<\/a> of 1 Crown Office Row, and Steven Kosmin<\/a> of 11KBW.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The special advocates for the claimant were Tim Buley KC<\/a> of Landmark Chambers, Dominic Lewis<\/a> of 5 Paper Buildings and Jesse Nichols<\/a> of Matrix Chambers.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The special advocates for the claimant were Tim Buley KC<\/a> of Landmark Chambers, Dominic Lewis<\/a> of 5 Paper Buildings and Jesse Nichols<\/a> of Matrix Chambers.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The first intervenor (UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism) was represented by Adam Straw KC<\/a> and Rabah Kherbane<\/a> of Doughty Street Chambers.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The first intervenor (UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism) was represented by Adam Straw KC<\/a> and Rabah Kherbane<\/a> of Doughty Street Chambers.<\/p>\n"]},{"blockName":null,"attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n\n","innerContent":["\n\n"]},{"blockName":"core\/paragraph","attrs":[],"innerBlocks":[],"innerHTML":"\n The second (Amnesty International UK) and third (Liberty) intervenors were represented by Tom Hickman KC<\/a> of Blackstone and Jessica Jones<\/a> and Rosalind Comyn<\/a> of Matrix Chambers.<\/p>\n","innerContent":["\n The second (Amnesty International UK) and third (Liberty) intervenors were represented by Tom Hickman KC<\/a> of Blackstone and Jessica Jones<\/a> and Rosalind Comyn<\/a> of Matrix Chambers.<\/p>\n"]}],"new_scheduled_revision":null,"save_as_revision":null,"acf":{"custom_url":{"base_url":"guides","category":""},"sponsored_page":false,"href_lang":false,"useful_links":false,"social_sharing_post_options":{"alignment":"left","sticky":false},"title":"Written by Alexander Skelton","sponsors_list":{"sponsors":[{"name":"Alexander Skelton","website":"","logo":"https:\/\/assets.chambers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/01112512\/alexander-skelton.png","display_order":"0"}],"showhide_borders":false},"template":{"name":"text-rich-media","sticky_sidebar":false},"hero_title":"","hero_description":"","hero_content_color":"light","hero_enable_responsive_images":false,"hero_image":false,"hero_retina_image":false},"yoast_head":"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n