header-logo header-logo

24 July 2026 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 8171 / Categories: Features , National security , Human rights , Public
printer mail-detail

Analysing the proscription of Palestine Action

255689
© NEIL HALL/EPA/Shutterstock
Nicholas Dobson lifts the bonnet on the Court of Appeal ruling which held that government was within its rights to ban the group
  • Covers the legal reasoning and factual background of Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (Huda Ammori), where the Court of Appeal held in favour of the home secretary and set aside the quashing order made by the Divisional Court on 25 February 2026.

On 23 June 2025, the home secretary announced she had decided to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under s 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000). Following approval by both Houses of Parliament, a proscription order came into effect on 5 July 2025. Although the Divisional Court quashed the proscription decision on 13 February 2026 (holding it both inconsistent with the home secretary’s proscription policy and disproportionate), the Court of Appeal on 15 June 2026 upheld the Home Secretary’s decision. This was The Secretary of State for the Home Department v R (Huda Ammori) [2026]

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Mark Price

Freeths—Mark Price

Freeths strengthens restructuring and insolvency team with partner appointment

DWF—Caroline Featherstone, Victoria Neil & Matt Lewsey

DWF—Caroline Featherstone, Victoria Neil & Matt Lewsey

DWF strengthens public inquiries team with trio of high-profile appointments

Excello Law—Claire-Elaine Arthurs, Rhian Horwill & Caroline Lamming-Chowen

Excello Law—Claire-Elaine Arthurs, Rhian Horwill & Caroline Lamming-Chowen

Three-lawyer team hire boosts Excello Law’s property litigation practice

NEWS
Foreign judgment creditors have gained a route to recovery after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Drelle v Servis-Terminal
Surrogacy is growing in popularity, but parents-to-be face a complex legal framework
Winning a judgment may be only the beginning of an expensive enforcement battle, writes Professor Dominic Regan in this week's NLJ
Indemnity costs remain exceptional, but parties cannot ignore a case that deteriorates around them. In Lawrence v Associated Newspapers, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay indemnity costs after finding their conduct, viewed cumulatively, fell ‘well outside the norm’
Public law is in flux following reversals and robust appellate intervention, according to the latest public law update by the team at HSFK for NLJ
back-to-top-scroll