Huda Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hearing dates: 4 July 2025

Approved Judgment

(Revised Version)

Introduction

The claimant is one of the founders of Palestine Action (“PA”), which she describes as “a national network created by a number of direct action groups and activists from across the UK”. She says that PA aims:

“(i) to prevent serious violations of international law by Israel… against the Palestinian people, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid and genocide, and the aiding, abetting and facilitation thereof by others, including corporate actors; and

(ii) to expose and target property and premises connected to such crimes and violations”.

On 20 June 2025, two protestors linked to PA entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint on two RAF aircraft. The claimant says that the base is a departure point for flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, which she describes as “a key site of British military support for Israel's genocide in Gaza”. A defence source was quoted in an article on the BBC website as saying that they “did not expect the incident to affect operations”.

On 23 June 2025, the Home Secretary made a written ministerial statement in the House of Commons. She explained that she proposed to make an order adding Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”). In all but urgent situations, before making such an order, a draft must be laid before Parliament and approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses.

The proscription order was laid in draft on Monday 30 June. The draft order adds PA, together with two other organisations—the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—to the list of proscribed organisations. It has since been debated in and affirmed by each House (the House of Commons on 2 July and the House of Lords on 3 July). It is intended that the order will be made today (4 July) and will come into force tomorrow (5 July), subject to any interim relief the court may grant.

Judicial review claim documents were sent to the court late on the evening of Friday 27 June. They include an application for interim relief to restrain the Secretary of State from making the proscription order or, if made before the hearing, to suspend its effect.

After considering a response from the Home Secretary and a reply by the claimant over the weekend, I gave directions for a case management hearing on Monday 30 June. Following that hearing, I gave directions for an interim relief hearing today (4 July) and a separate permission hearing in the week commencing 21 July 2025.

The Secretary of State has indicated that she is likely to apply for a declaration under s. 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) so that the court can consider CLOSED material at the permission hearing. There has been no time for a closed material procedure before the interim relief hearing.

Evidence

The claimant's evidence

In her witness statement, the claimant says this:

“3… In 2020, I co-founded Palestine Action, a direct-action protest group aimed at preventing military targets in the UK from facilitating gross abuses of international law. The aim of terrorists is to take lives and hurt people: that is the opposite of what Palestine Action is about.

…

30. Palestine Action's aim is to take direct action against Israel's arms trade in Britain. Our aims have never included, and we have never encouraged, harm to any person at all. The goal is simple: to put our bodies in the way of military machine perpetrating genocide. The main target has been stopping Elbit Systems [a defence company which is said to supply the Israeli government].

31. I am not the leader. We are a horizontal movement and everyone is the same. We have different working groups for different things and all work together. I sometimes do more of the public speaking. We encourage people to have their own ideas and take their own actions. These do involve damage to property contributing to the arms industry, but also have involved demonstrations, talks, sit ins, posters/banners and sieges. For example, supporters of Palestine Action from the local community in Leicester hold a demonstration outside an Elbit factory there weekly.”

The claimant predicts that, if the proscription takes effect, she will be labelled as the co-founder of a terrorist organisation and this will make her “incredibly unsafe”. Those who have taken direct action with PA, including many who have not yet completed their university degrees, are likely to lose their jobs or be unable to get one. The claimant would have to avoid travelling to the Middle East for fear of assassination. Many Palestinian supporters would be unable to go home. Proscription may have a reputational impact on the claimant's immediate family.

People all over the country will have to discard their PA tee-shirts, banners and badges or risk committing a terrorist offence. Hundreds who are waiting to be charged or tried after taking direct action with PA, including the claimant herself, will be unable to receive a fair trial or to speak in favour of their own actions. When they stand trial, they will be unable to receive emotional or financial support.

The claimant predicts that, if PA is proscribed, she will never be given a platform to speak publicly, because PA will be “ranked alongside ISIS and National Action (both being groups I detest)”. The claimant also fears that proscription may have an impact on the release of a film called To kill a war machine, which was due to be screened in the UK and globally.

The claimant concludes:

“45. At the time I write this statement, Palestinians in Gaza are trapped in a nightmare. A population has been pushed into a tiny space, starved, killed, maimed, tormented and is at the verge of destruction. Our movement seeks to end this suffering: not through hurting people or fighting but through direct action, like many protestors before us. We are not the terrorists.”

The claim was filed with supporting witness statements from Anna Ost, Senior Legal Officer at the European Legal Support Centre; Sam Grant, Director of External Relations at the National Council for Civil Liberties (“Liberty”); and Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive Officer of Amnesty UK. This evidence shows that PA has widespread support among those supportive of Palestinian rights and claims and that the proposed proscription has given rise to serious concern on the part of some journalists, politicians and mainstream civil society groups and non-governmental organisations.

Further evidence was filed on 2 July from the claimant, Ms Ost and other individuals.

In her second witness statement, the claimant records her shock and frustration that PA is to be proscribed alongside the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement. She points out that it has taken 5 years to build up the network that is PA and that it would be extremely difficult to rebuild it if it were de-proscribed after a period of proscription for several months. She gives details of requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for documents recording contact between the Israeli government, Elbit Systems and others in the defence sector and ministers, officials and senior police officers. Details are given of public statements by a lobby group called We Believe in Israel, claiming credit for the proscription of PA, and of two letters sent by the Campaign Against Antisemitism to the Secretary of State calling for the proscription of PA, among other groups.

In her second witness statement, Ms Ost gives details of cases of which her organisation is aware, where those accused of association with terrorists have encountered problems at university, at work, with professional regulatory bodies and/or in relation to their immigration status.

The other individuals whose evidence is relied upon are Zoe Stormonth Darling (a pupil barrister), Selma Dabbagh (a British-Palestinian solicitor and novelist), Sally Rooney (a novelist), Alexei Sayle (a comedian, presenter and writer), Lydia Dagostino (a solicitor representing persons charged with offences arising out of direct action by PA), Kevin John McEvoy (a journalist), Joe Irving (a campaigner and freelance web developer), Ibrahim Takey (a protestor against Elbit UK in Leicester), Basma Ghalayini (a Palestinian Gazan office manager), Andrew Feinstein (writer, sometime politician and Executive Director of Shadow World Investigations) and Aimee Shalan (Chair of the British Palestinian Committee). It is not possible to summarise here the content of these statements, but each attests to the anticipated adverse impact of the order.

In her statement, Ms Dagostino outlines the potential consequences of the proscription of PA for individuals who continue to express support for it. These include arrest, deprivation of liberty, stigma and loss of employment. She also explains her concerns about the effects of proscription on persons awaiting trial for offences connected with PA direct action in the past. She points out that, if interim relief were granted, the criminal law would still supply a range of offences which would offer protection to the public until the judicial review...