The Court of Appeal (CoA) has considered an urgent application for permission to appeal against a High Court decision, which refused to grant interim relief aimed at temporarily preventing a government order to proscribe an organisation from taking effect.
Background:
Ms. Ammori, a founder of Palestine Action, applied for permission to appeal a High Court decision that refused her request for interim relief. This relief aimed to temporarily halt an order from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, made on 4 July 2025, to add Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000, an order which was due to take effect after midnight on 5 July 2025.
Palestine Action, a group formed around five years ago, focuses on direct action against those companies and institutions in the UK allegedly involved in violations of international law against Palestinians. Members or supporters of Palestine Action are accused, amongst other things, of breaking into a RAF base in the early hours of 20 June 2025 and damaging two military aircraft, which resulted in the Secretary of State's decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
Ms. Ammori initiated a judicial review claim on 27 June 2025, challenging the proscription decision, arguing that it exceeds the Secretary of State's powers, is for an improper purpose, irrational, or violates human rights, including freedom of expression and association.
The High Court refused her request for interim relief based on the fact that suspending the order, made on national security grounds, would deny the public important protections. Ms. Ammori appealed.
Decision:
The CoA refused permission to appeal, emphasising that its role is solely to review the Lower Court's decision, not to rehear the case or substitute its own discretion. The Judge stressed that a trial judge's welfare decisions, especially in urgent matters like this, should be given "great respect" unless there is a clear error in law or a decision outside the reasonable ambit of discretion.
The Court agreed with the Judge's application of the American Cyanamid principles, particularly the balance of convenience, within a national security context. The Court reiterated that, where national security is a public interest, courts must show "great respect" to the executive's judgement regarding risk and its weight. The Judge upheld the Judge's view that suspending the proscription order, even for a short period, would deny the public "important protections" that the order was intended to confer. This "strong public interest in national security" was therefore a central, and correctly weighted, factor.
The Court found that the Judge's assessment of the balance of convenience did account for all relevant factors, including the "chilling effect," impact on employment and education, and clarity of the order. The Court reiterated that proscription only criminalises future acts of support for the organisation, not past conduct, and that the right to lawful protest remains unaffected.
Implications:
While not expressly discussed in this case, membership or association with a proscribed terrorist organisation is a strong ground for refusing entry to the UK, cancelling existing visas, or denying applications for leave to remain. The Home Office can use immigration powers to exclude foreign nationals suspected of terrorist-related activity from entering or re-entering the UK. This can apply, even if they have not been convicted of a specific offence, based on the Home Secretary's belief that their presence is not conducive to the public good or national security. Non-UK nationals (including those with indefinite leave to remain or various types of visas) found to be members of, or providing support to, Palestine Action could thus face deportation proceedings. Membership of a proscribed organisation is a serious breach of the Immigration Rules and a significant public interest ground for removal.
As mentioned in the judgement, such proscription can create a "chilling effect", leading to self-censorship, where individuals, particularly those from Palestinian communities or with strong views on the conflict, may fear expressing legitimate opinions or engaging in lawful protest due to concerns about being linked to the proscribed organisation and facing harrowing immigration consequences.
