The Home Office has argued that a legal challenge to the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation should not be heard in the High Court, claiming the case is not “exceptional”. The group’s founder, Huda Ammori, is seeking to overturn the decision made by the then home secretary, Yvette Cooper, which made membership or support for the organisation a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
++ Avoid these 3 risky toilet habits
Mr Justice Chamberlain had previously ruled that Ms Ammori could pursue a challenge, finding that it was “reasonably arguable” that the ban amounted to a disproportionate interference with her rights to freedom of expression and assembly. He also allowed a second argument to proceed, that Ms Cooper had failed to consult Palestine Action before announcing the ban, potentially breaching the principles of natural justice.
However, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that such a High Court challenge should be a “remedy of last resort”. He said the statutory process, through an appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), offered a suitable route and insisted there was “nothing exceptional” about the case to justify bypassing that procedure. Lawyers for Ms Ammori countered that judicial review was a vital constitutional safeguard, particularly given the serious implications of proscription.
++ Could scientists upload an animal brain to a computer?
The ban on Palestine Action came into effect on 5 July, shortly after the group admitted responsibility for damaging two RAF Voyager aircraft, causing an estimated £7m worth of damage. While Ms Ammori has already failed in earlier attempts to suspend the ban, the High Court is due to hear her challenge in November. The Court of Appeal’s decision on whether that case should proceed is expected following this week’s hearing before Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis.
