On 5 July 2025 the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 ("the Order") came into force. The Order was made on 4 July 2025, having been laid before Parliament by the Home Secretary on 30 June 2025, approved by the House of Commons on 2 July 2025 and by the House of Lords on 3 July 2025.
The Order added the names of three organisations to the list of proscribed organisations at Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act").
One of those organisations was Palestine Action.
The proposal to make the Order was controversial and, in advance of it being made, it attracted the attention of the United Nations - previous post 2 July 2025.
In October 2025, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ruled that judicial could take place on specified grounds - post of 17 October 2025.
The permitted grounds were:
(1) Ground 8: that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully by failing before deciding to lay the Order before Parliament to give Palestine Action the opportunity to make representations that it should not be proscribed;
(2) Ground 5: that when deciding to seek an order proscribing Palestine Action the Home Secretary failed to have regard to relevant considerations;
(3) Ground 6: that the decision to seek the Order proscribing Palestine Action was made by the Home Secretary in breach of her own policy on when she would exercise her discretion to seek an order proscribing an organisation; and
(4) Ground 2: that the decision to seek proscription was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 (the HRA) because it amounted to an unjustified interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) under article 10 of the Convention, to freedom of expression and under article 11 of the Convention, to freedom of association and peaceful assembly; and further, amounted to discrimination contrary to article 14 of the Convention.
The High Court held that the application for judicial review succeeded only on grounds 6 and 2.The Proscription Order was not consistent with the Home Secretary's policy for making such orders (Ground 6).
So far as Ground 2 was concerned, the court said:
'Considering in the round the evidence available to the Home Secretary when the decision to proscribe was made, the nature and scale of Palestine Action's activities, so far as they comprise acts of terrorism, has not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are the consequence of proscription, and the very significant interference with Convention rights consequent on those measures.'
My understanding is that the Home Secretary intends to seek an appeal against this judgment. Notably, the High Court did not make an actual order. The final paragraph in the judgment states -
'For the reasons given above, Grounds 5 and 8 of the claim fail and are dismissed, but the claimant succeeds on Grounds 6 and 2 of her claim. To this extent the claimant's claim is allowed. Subject to any further representations on relief, we propose to make an order quashing the Home Secretary's decision to proscribe Palestine Action.' [My emphasis].
Therefore, meanwhile, Palestine Action remains a proscribed organisation - BBC News 13 February 2026.
Judicial Review is concerned with legality - ensuring that official decision-makers act in accordance with the law and with processes required by law. The judgment does NOT mean that the High Court approved of the conduct of Palestine Action. See, for example, paragraph 137 of the judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment