Palestine Action has lost a last-minute Court of Appeal challenge to stop its designation as a terrorist organisation, with the ban coming into force at midnight. The pro-Palestinian group's legal bid failed less than two hours before the Government's proscription order took effect.
Earlier on Friday, Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, had unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary injunction.
Appeal court rejects final challenge
Lawyers for Ammori took the case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening in a desperate last-ditch attempt. In a decision delivered at around 10:30pm, the three-judge panel refused to grant the temporary block.
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said the High Court judge "was entitled to take the view that the harm identified would be the product of an individual's decision not to comply with the order". She added there was "no real prospect of a successful appeal".
Supreme Court bid blocked
Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, attempted to have the case certified as a "point of general public importance" to allow a Supreme Court appeal. However, Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, dismissed this prospect.
"You are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight," the judge stated. She said any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid for a stay of the proscription order.
High Court reasoning explained
In his earlier decision refusing the temporary block, High Court Mr Justice Chamberlain explained his reasoning. "I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force," he said.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, representing Ammori, argued the judge had wrongly balanced the interests of her client against those of the Home Office. She told the Court of Appeal there would be a "chilling effect on free speech" and that "people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent".
Concerns over ban's clarity
Ni Ghralaigh argued that Mr Justice Chamberlain "failed properly to consider" that banning the group "would cause irreparable harm". She said there was "significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear".
The barrister warned that "a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity". She argued the ban's scope was too broad and would criminalise legitimate protest activity.
Government defends decision
Ben Watson KC, representing the Home Office, defended the High Court judge's decision as "detailed and careful" and "all the more impressive given the time constraints". He said Mr Justice Chamberlain "was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did" after conducting "a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon".
Watson argued the judge was "alive" to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential "chilling effect" on free speech. "There was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldn't, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success," he added.
(PA) Note: This article has been edited with the help of Artificial Intelligence.
