The UK Supreme Court heard on Wednesday a legal challenge by Huda Ammori, a co‑founder of Palestine Action, to the government's decision to proscribe the activist group. Counsel for Ammori told the court that the ban had undermined public confidence in the country's anti‑terrorism framework and had wider implications for lawful protest.
Ammori is seeking judicial review of the Home Office's designation. Her legal team argued that the proscription was disproportionate and that its effect on activists and on public perception of counter‑terrorism powers warranted careful scrutiny by the highest court.
The hearing examined whether the legal tests for proscription were properly applied in this case and considered the balance between national security objectives and civil liberties. Lawyers for Ms Ammori said the move risked chilling lawful political expression and protest, and that upholding the ban could set a precedent for the use of security legislation against political groups.
The government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action has been contested since it was announced, and the Supreme Court case will determine whether that decision should stand. Observers say the outcome could have significant consequences for how anti‑terror laws are deployed in relation to activist organisations and public demonstrations.
Justices will consider the written and oral submissions before delivering a judgment at a later date. The case is being watched for its potential to clarify the limits of proscription powers and the safeguards required when such serious measures are taken against domestic groups.