13 Feb High Court rules decision to proscribe Palestine Action under terrorism legislation unlawful
The High Court has today handed down a landmark judgment in the case of R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin) finding that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully by proscribing Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The decision of Dame Victoria Sharp PKBD, Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn DBE follows a judicial review issued by the co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, against the decision dated 20 June 2025 to add Palestine Action to the UK list of proscribed organisations. In upholding the claim on two grounds, the High Court found that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action, and that proscription breached the rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Deighton Pierce Glynn acted for Amnesty International UK who along with Liberty were given permission to intervene in the case and opposed the proscription decision on the basis that it was a disproportionate interference with freedoms of expression and assembly. They highlighted the serious impact on the long history of direct action protest in the UK, with reference to the wide range of potential criminal offences that result from proscription, such as the criminalisation of meetings that further the purpose of the proscribed organisation, even where that purpose is direct action protest in relation to Palestine.
A copy of Amnesty and Liberty’s Intervention Submissions can be downloaded here.
The parties now have until 20 February 2026 to make submissions on relief and it is important to note that, despite the Court’s ruling, the proscription order currently remains in force pending further order of the Court.
Tom Southerden, Amnesty International UK’s Law and Human Rights Director, has said:
“Today’s ruling is a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack. The High Court’s decision sends a clear message – the Government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter‑terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent. We welcome this judgment as an essential check on overreach and a powerful reminder that fundamental freedoms still carry weight in UK law. We are relieved and encouraged that the Court has recognised the dangers of treating direct action as terrorism.
“This decision halts a pattern of escalating restrictions, aggressive policing tactics, and an ever-expanding definition of what constitutes ‘terrorism’. It draws an important line in the sand against attempts to narrow the democratic space and undermine public confidence in the right to speak out. The implications are profound. Thousands of peaceful protesters – including those involved in the Defend Our Juries campaign – have been arrested for something that should never have been a crime. This ruling offers hope not only for them, but for anyone who believes that challenging those in power is a legitimate and necessary part of public life. A healthy democracy depends on people being able to organise, protest, and demand accountability without fear of being branded a threat. Today’s outcome strengthens that principle and underscores the importance of safeguarding our rights against disproportionate, politically motivated interference”.
The full judgment is available here.
Amnesty International UK were represented by Daniel Carey, Gus Silverman, Emily Soothill and Evie Oldfield, instructing (with Liberty) Tom Hickman KC of Blackstone Chambers and Jessica Jones and Rosalind Comyn of Matrix Chambers.
Share this story
