Palestine Action proscription deemed justified and proportionate by UK Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the government's ban on Palestine Action as a terror organization is lawful, overturning an earlier High Court decision.

The Court of Appeal has made a landmark decision in one of the most significant national security cases in recent years, ruling that the government’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terror organization is lawful. This decision overturns an earlier ruling by the High Court, which had deemed the ban an unlawful interference with the right to protest.

The case has sparked intense debate about the balance between national security and civil liberties, with protests erupting outside the Royal Courts of Justice following the ruling. The Metropolitan Police reported arresting 117 people on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organization, highlighting the contentious nature of the issue.

The Legal Battle Over Palestine Action

The Court of Appeal’s decision, delivered by five senior judges including Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carrconcluded that the ban was “justified and proportionate.” The judges acknowledged the controversy surrounding the proscription but emphasized that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism.

Baroness Carr stated that the group operates covertly with secret cells to avoid detection and prosecution, contrasting it with transparent civil disobedience groups like the suffragettes. The court highlighted that Palestine Action had neither disowned nor condemned three incidents judged by ministers to amount to terrorism, which were crucial in the decision-making process.

The Government’s Stance

The government argued that the home secretary had been legally entitled to proscribe Palestine Action under the policy on banning terrorism groups. The court agreed, stating that the government is generally better placed than the courts in deciding matters of national security. This decision gives ministers a wide margin of discretion in such complex fields.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood welcomed the ruling, clarifying that it does not affect lawful protest in support of the Palestinian cause. She emphasized that Palestine Action’s actions are not consistent with democratic values and the rule of law, describing the group as one that carries out acts of terrorism and promotes violence.

Palestine Action’s Response

Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, expressed surprise at the judgment, noting that the High Court had previously ruled the government acted unlawfully. She vowed to continue fighting the decision, calling it one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history.

Ammori challenged the ban on the grounds that the then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had not followed her own internal rules and that the ban interfered with the right to protest. The High Court had initially agreed, but the government’s appeal led to the Court of Appeal’s reversal of this decision.

The Implications of the Ruling

The Court of Appeal’s decision has significant implications for national security and protest rights. The judges indicated that the case was legally complex, often a signal that the Supreme Court may need to clarify the law in this area. However, they did not certify that the issues were so unclear that a final review should go ahead.

Jonathan Metzer, a barrister specializing in government decisions, noted that the Court of Appeal found the High Court did not show enough attention to the margin of discretion the government has in matters of national security. He suggested that the Supreme Court might feel the issues have been adequately dealt with, but it is unclear whether Palestine Action will be granted permission to appeal.

The ruling underscores the delicate balance between maintaining national security and upholding civil liberties. While the government has been given a broader scope to proscribe organizations it deems a threat, the decision also highlights the need for careful consideration of the impact on protest rights and freedom of expression.