UK Supreme Court hears appeal against Palestine Action terror ban

The British government is defending its decision to outlaw Palestine Action at the UK Supreme Court, as co-founder Huda Ammori brings a final domestic legal challenge against the group's designation as a terrorist organisation. The two-day hearing tests the boundaries of counterterrorism legislation, freedom of speech, and the right to protest in Britain.

The case centres on whether the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect freedom of expression and assembly. Ammori's legal team, led by Raza Husain KC, argues that the ban amounts to a disproportionate destruction of a civil society protest group. According to court documents cited in the appeal, only a tiny fraction of the group's actions over a five-year period met the statutory definition of terrorism, and those instances were based solely on serious damage to property rather than violence against people.

Media additions

Palestine Action ban to be appealed at Supreme Court

The legal battle has traversed the UK court system. In February, the High Court ruled the proscription unlawful and disproportionate. However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in June, concluding the ban was lawful and proportional for a covert organisation operating through secret cells. Ammori now appeals to the highest court in the land, with permission granted strictly on the question of compatibility with human rights conventions regarding freedom of expression and assembly.

The fallout from the proscription has created significant friction across British public life. Public expressions of support for Palestine Action carry penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Campaign groups such as Defend Our Juries report that thousands of individuals have been arrested since the ban took effect. Recent demonstrations outside the US Embassy in London and in Edinburgh saw hundreds of arrests of people holding placards bearing a prohibited six-word statement opposing genocide and supporting the group. Those detained included pensioners, a military veteran, a priest, and Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.

The Supreme Court proceedings have drawn extensive interventions from diverse civil society organisations and international observers. Human rights organisations Amnesty International UK and Liberty warned through their counsel, Tom Hickman KC, that the lower courts failed to provide a meaningful check on government proscription powers. Meanwhile, Professor Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, has also submitted written perspectives.

Contrasting arguments have been entered by community and religious groups. The Community Security Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council intervened to support the government's ban, arguing via Adam Wagner KC that Palestine Action's activities — including targeting Jewish-owned businesses and charities — render the British Jewish community vulnerable, and that revoking the proscription would revitalize a dangerous movement.

Representing the Home Office, Sir James Eadie KC maintained that the Court of Appeal made no error of law and that acts involving serious property damage lawfully qualify as terrorism without requiring intent to endanger life. The government contends that the ban restricts only direct support for Palestine Action itself, rather than broader public expressions of solidarity with Palestine or opposition to Israeli government policies.

As the hearing proceeds before Lords Reed, Sales, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs, and Stephens, with certain afternoon sessions closed to the public due to national security evidence, observers await the final verdict. If unsuccessful at the Supreme Court, Ammori has indicated an intention to take the challenge to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. More news coverage on protest laws and civil liberties developments will follow as the court prepares to issue its reserved judgment.