UK Supreme Court hears appeal against Palestine Action ban
The UK Supreme Court began hearing Huda Ammori’s appeal against the designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Her lawyers argue the ban was disproportionate; the government says serious property damage justified it. Amnesty International UK and Liberty intervened jointly in the case. No final ruling had been announced, and the ban remained in force.
Geopolitics··Evening
Appeal hearing begins
The UK Supreme Court began hearing an appeal on November 4 against Palestine Action’s designation as a terrorist organisation. The case was brought by Huda Ammori, a co-founder of the direct-action protest group. Amnesty International UK and Liberty were granted permission to intervene jointly in the appeal.[1], [2]
A lower court had initially found the ban unlawful. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision in June and upheld the designation. The Supreme Court proceedings challenge that appellate ruling. No final decision had been announced as the two-day hearing began, and the hearing itself did not lift the ban.[1]
Lawyers dispute the basis for proscription
Ammori’s lawyers say the ban was disproportionate and undermined confidence in counter-terrorism legislation. Her lawyer Raza Husain argued that officials had assessed only three of the group’s 385 actions over five years as meeting the terrorism definition. Government lawyer James Eadie said serious property damage could constitute terrorism even without violence against people. The Home Office cited escalating damage at defence companies in defending its decision.[1]
Protests accompany the legal challenge
Founded in 2020, Palestine Action carried out occupations, obstruction, paint protests and window-breaking at businesses it said were connected to supplying arms to Israel. Before last year’s ban, the government cited a raid on Elbit Systems and a break-in at the Royal Air Force’s Brize Norton base that damaged two aircraft. Supporters were arrested outside the London court during the appeal hearing. The government’s lawyer said supporting Palestine or opposing Israel remained lawful as long as it did not involve support for the banned group.[1]
