Which ground was allowed through

The UK Supreme Court opened Huda Ammori's challenge to appeal on 30 July on a single ground: that the then home secretary, Yvette Cooper, misapplied her own policy. Permission was refused on freedom of expression and association. The distinction changes what the case is about. The question to be answered in the autumn is this: did the minister exercise her discretion in line with the test she had herself announced?[1]

The path of the case shows the same narrowing. In February the High Court held that the proscription should be quashed; in June the Court of Appeal overturned that; the Supreme Court has now left one ground standing. The hearing has been expedited to a date between 1 October and 21 December, and the permission decision was taken by Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt and Lady Simler.[1]

What can come out of a narrow gate

The surviving ground concerns how the power was used. A defect of that kind is usually cured by retaking the decision properly, so success on appeal may or may not end the ban. The other reading is open too: the court could construe the policy so tightly that reaching the same outcome again becomes impractical. The difference between the two turns on how narrowly the judgment is written.[1]

There is an observable way to tell them apart. If the appeal succeeds on that single ground, then by 31 March 2027 either the Home Office takes and publishes a fresh proscription decision, or the group comes off the Home Office list of proscribed organisations. Which of the two happens will show the judgment's reach without anyone having to parse its reasoning.[1]

The power that stays in force meanwhile

The ban remains in force during the appeal. Through the hearing window that runs from October to December, the legal consequence of expressing support for the group is unchanged. Judicial scrutiny has begun, but the administrative measure keeps running without interruption.[1]

The people who pay for that interval are not parties to it. More than 3,500 have been arrested since the proscription, and on the day permission was granted another 77 were arrested outside Westminster Magistrates' Court. The court's calendar and the calendar on the street do not run at the same speed.[1]