The co-founder of Palestine Action has won a legal challenge at the High Court over the group’s proscription as a terrorist organisation.
Huda Ammori brought the case after a decision by then home secretary Yvette Cooper to ban the organisation. The proscription came into force on 5 July last year.
Under the legislation, Palestine Action was placed on the same legal footing as groups such as Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. Membership of, or support for, the group became a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The ban also made it illegal to display the group’s name in public, including on clothing or signs, carrying a potential sentence of up to six months in prison.
During a three-day hearing, Ms Ammori’s legal team argued that the proscription was unprecedented and disproportionate. They compared the group’s activities to those of historic protest movements, including the suffragettes.
The Home Office defended the decision, saying it struck a fair balance between individual rights and the wider interests of the community.
Raza Husain KC, representing Ms Ammori, told the court that thousands of people had been arrested since the ban took effect. He said those detained included teachers, pensioners, retired military officers and an 81-year-old former magistrate.
The campaign group Defend Our Juries, which has organised protests against the ban, said 2,787 people had been arrested across the UK.
Written evidence in support of the challenge was submitted by author Sally Rooney. She said she had been warned she could commit a terrorism offence after stating she would donate future earnings to support Palestine Action, and that this could affect her ability to publish in the UK.
Sir James Eadie KC, acting for the Home Office, told the court that the ban had not prevented people from protesting against Israel’s actions in Gaza or from supporting Palestinians.
However, he said some individuals had deliberately breached the proscription by continuing to associate publicly with Palestine Action.
In its ruling, the High Court found in favour of Ms Ammori on two grounds, concluding that aspects of the proscription were unlawful. The government is now expected to consider its response to the judgment.