header-logo header-logo

24 July 2026
Issue: 8171 / Categories: Legal News , National security , Human rights , Public
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Proscription appeal upheld

255689
© NEIL HALL/EPA/Shutterstock
The Court of Appeal was entitled to uphold the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, according to an analysis of the ruling

Writing in NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson explains the court found the home secretary acted lawfully in balancing national security against rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

It rejected the Divisional Court's conclusion that the decision was disproportionate, finding the proscription policy did not constrain ministerial discretion. The judgment held the organisation's activities extended beyond peaceful protest and that the operational benefits of proscription justified the interference with Convention rights.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll