Palestine Action Supreme Court Hearing Day 1

The first day of the Supreme Court challenge to the proscription of Palestine Action began with long waits outside the court and ended with members of the public excluded from the courtroom, despite later-visible empty seats. They were sent to an overspill room with screens. The account argues that security concerns, reinforced by the government’s designation of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, undermined open justice. The case, brought by founder Huda Ammori, was the final appeal in a dispute where the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful and the Court of Appeal had upheld it. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether its effects on freedom of expression and assembly were disproportionate.

For Ammori, Raza Hussain KC argued that Palestine Action is a direct-action protest group, not a terrorist organisation, and that only three of 385 cited actions met the government’s definition of terrorism. He compared its aims and tactics with historic suffragette, environmental and animal-rights campaigns, and noted opposition to the ban from civil-liberties groups. He also argued that the proscription could damage public confidence in counterterrorism law and produce wider legal consequences if peaceful supporters’ arrests were successfully challenged. Judges pressed him on whether the damage to RAF Brize Norton constituted terrorism, particularly while a criminal case over the incident was pending. Hussain compared it with an earlier anti-militarist action that was not treated as terrorism; the judges questioned whether the Supreme Court, rather than the Home Secretary, should decide how the incident was classified.