A trio of judges in the High Court, including the President of the King’s Bench Division, have ruled that the ‘ban’ on Palestine Action by the Government in June last year under the Terrorism Act 2000 was disproportionate and unlawful.
The judgment was critical of the group, and ruled that “Palestine Action encourages its members…to plan and cause damage to property.” The court found that “Palestine Action is not engaged in any exercise of persuasion, or at least not the type of persuasion that is consistent with democratic values and the rule of law.” It is “not an accurate picture” that Palestine Action is an ‘ordinary’ protest group engaged in activities that fall within the well-established tradition of peaceful protect. However, vitally, the actions Palestine Action has actually taken amounting to terrorism are “very small in number”.
The judicial review of the decision to ban Palestine Action, brought by Ms Huda Ammori, its cofounder, was successful on two of the four grounds for which permission to bring the challenge had been granted:
- Ground 6: the decision to proscribe was contrary to the Home Secretary’s own policy. This issue was about the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her discretion under the Terrorism Act 2000, guided by a policy paper to assist decisions on proscription, taking into account key factors. The policy required the Home Secretary to assess restrictions that would follow proscription and decide whether they were generally proportionate to the nature and scale of the threat that Palestine Action presents. The Court found that the Home Secretary’s approach to ‘other factors’ (such as operational advantages) in making her decision was inconsistent with the policy.
- Ground 2: European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The High Court found that the ban interfered “very significantly” with the Article 10 and 11 rights under the ECHR of those who have or would support Palestine Action, and required justification. The Home Secretary had failed to properly apply her policy and therefore the interference with ECHR rights was not “prescribed by law” (a justification for state bodies who wish to qualify human rights in some way). The balance between the interference in the ECHR rights and the objective for that interference was not struck, and the decision to proscribe the organisation tipped into being disproportionate.
The High Court consequently proposed to make an order quashing the decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
The Home Secretary has indicated that she plans to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal, going as far as to express that she “disagreed with the notion” that banning Palestine Action, which she referred to as a “terrorist group” was disproportionate.
Huda Ammori expressed relief that the High Court had struck down the decision which led to nearly 3,000 arrests of protestors, many of whom were pensioners arrested for sitting in silence holding signs supporting Palestine Action. Some, including Zack Polanski, Green party leader, are calling for those arrested in connection with the proscription of Palestine Action to have their charges dropped.
The High Court has ruled that the ban will remain in place until any application for a stay pending appeal is made. It remains to be seen how this plays out in any future protests in the name of Palestine Action until the outcome of an appeal, and for those awaiting charges (which can often take many months, or even a year, after an arrest).