Palestine Action co-founder wins permission to challenge ban

The co-founder of Palestine Action can bring a legal challenge to the home secretary’s decision to ban the direct action group under anti-terrorism laws, a high court judge has ruled.

Lawyers for Huda Ammori argued at a hearing in London last week that the proscription of Palestine Action, which places it on a par with groups such as Islamic State and Boko Haram, was an “authoritarian and blatant abuse of power”.

They warned that it was already having a chilling effect on freedom of speech and protest, highlighting dozens of arrests of people for demonstrating since the ban came into force on 5 July, a number believed to have risen above 200.

The Home Office argued that a judicial review was not the correct avenue to challenge the ban, given that parliament had designated the POAC (Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) precisely for that purpose.

Giving his ruling on Wednesday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that he had heard evidence of “cases where individuals have been subjected to police action for expressing various kinds of support for the Palestinian cause”. The judge cited the case of Laura Murton, who the Guardian revealed had been threatened with arrest by armed officers for holding a sign saying “Free Gaza” and a Palestinian flag.

He said: “If, as the claimant says, the proscription order is likely to have a significant chilling effect on the legitimate political speech of many thousands of people, that would do considerable harm to the public interest … I consider it reasonably arguable that the proscription order amounts to a disproportionate interference with the article 10 and article 11 (European convention of human rights) rights (freedom of expression and assembly, respectively) of the claimant and others.”

The second ground on which Chamberlain granted permission for judicial review was the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, not consulting Palestine Action before proscribing it, finding it was reasonably arguable that there was a duty to consult.

He said that POAC would be unlikely to be able to hear the case before the middle of next year whereas a judicial review could be heard this autumn and there was a strong public interest for it to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible.

Otherwise, people charged with criminal offences under the Terrorism Act might seek to challenge the legality of the proscription order in courts that might reach different decisions, creating “a recipe for chaos”, he said.

Ammori called it a “landmark decision … especially at a time when protesters – mostly elderly citizens – are being dragged off in police vans, held in detention for over 24 hours, having their homes raided and face criminal prosecution, simply for holding signs that they oppose genocide and expressing their support for Palestine Action”.

Documents in the case showed that Cooper held private discussions with aides for three months before she took the decision to ban Palestine Action. On one occasion, she decided to ban the group but reversed course two days later.

She finally decided to ban the group on 20 June, hours after Palestine Action said its members had broken into the RAF’s Brize Norton airbase and defaced two military aircraft with spray paint.

On 7 March, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) – a government body based within MI5, the security service – produced a secret report.

It concluded that the majority of Palestine Action’s activities would not be classified as terrorism on the grounds that the group “primarily uses direct action tactics”, which typically resulted in minor damage to property. “Common tactics include graffiti, petty vandalism, occupation and lock-ons,” it added.

Nonetheless JTAC concluded that Palestine Action should be banned, arguing that its protests had been escalating, citing three protests it said constituted acts of terrorism.

Whitehall officials supported a ban too but conceded that proscribing the group would be “relatively novel”, as “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed on the basis that it was concerned in terrorism mainly due to its use or threat of action involving series damage to property.”

From late March, officials recommended on a series of occasions that the group had to be banned, but Cooper made no firm decision, often requesting more information.

On 14 May she backed the ban but two days later delayed implementing it as she wanted more details of the Palestine Action’s recent activities.