Huda Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Judicial Review - Approved judgment is delivered

30 July 2025

by Nick King

Photo: Patrick Haseldine

The judgment in the application for judicial review of Huda Ammori v the Secretary of State for the Home Department was delivered today by Mr Justice Chamberlain at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The case concerns the issuance of an order by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper nominating Palestine Action to be added to the schedule of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Representation for both parties were present: Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC for Huda Ammori; Sir James Eadie KC and Ben Watson KC for the Secretary of State. The key question from the preceding hearing of equitable alternative remedy - that would render judicial review unavailable - was decided as a preliminary issue. The Defendants had argued that statutory provisions in the Terrorism Act for enabling deproscription were dedicated to this end and also the more appropriate, their including, in the event of refusal from the Secretary of State, an avenue of appeal to the specialised Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC).

Chamberlain today iterated that existence of such provisions could not override the fact that there were serious matters to be tried, nor did the statute oust the contingency of judicial review. Any alternative remedy should be 'conveniently and effectively available'. The comparative expedience of the judicial review process, its potentially mitigating impact on the detriment to third parties' rights to freedom of expression, and the possibility of judicial inconsistency from a multiplicity of related criminal proceedings each weighed in favour of permitting the Claimant's application to go ahead.

Solid Grounds

Of the eight grounds petitioned by the Claimant in support of the application, six were declined per se as not arguable, although the matters arising under four of those would be heard in effect consolidated under two grounds ruled allowable, namely that:

- the proscription order constitutes disproportionate interference with rights protected under Articles 10 & 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);

- the Home Secretary acted in breach of natural justice, or contrary to rights protected under Article 6 of the ECHR, in not consulting with Palestine Action before laying the order before Parliament.

Justice Chamberlain acknowledged the feasibility of the Home Secretary exercising the proscription power under the Act for a purpose other than the statutory purpose. Since certain deeds of Palestine Action were held to satisfy the statutory definition of the offence in alternative respects, he did not however consider the objective of the Claimant's first ground - asserting 'improper' motivation - as viable.

In camera

Both hearings relating to this action (for interim relief, held on 4 July 2025, and for judicial review) have featured closed sessions where public access to submissions in court is prohibited. Prior to the application heard on 21 July 2025, Chamberlain had presided over a preliminary closed session allowing material declared 'sensitive' to national security to be withheld at the Defendant's request. The restriction, made under s6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, related to material concerning the permissions hearing.

The Secretary of State's order - if not to be regarded as cunning procedural manipulation - reveals fundamental yet archetypal flaws in the UK's anti-terrorism legislation: primarily, the tautology and flaccidity embedded in its definitional syntax; and, substantially, the derogation of its operative influence to surreptitious agency. Diverse concerns have been raised regularly as to its compatibility with a healthily-functioning democratic society - again here with permission to intervene in the case being ceded to the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, Dr. Ben Saul.

The Defendant has no leave to appeal the judgment. The Claimant's resubmission of a request to stay the order pending exercise of the judicial review hearing was not granted, notwithstanding the forewarned arrests materialising throughout July 2025 due to its questionable exercise by police nationwide. Judicial review is anticipated to be scheduled for mid‑November 2025.