Final submissions made before judgment in High Court challenge to proscription of Palestine Action
4 December 2025
Garden Court North’s Mira Hammad and Rosalind Burgin are among Counsel representing Huda Ammori in her legal challenge to Palestine Action’s proscription at the High Court. Credit: Pete Speller / Shutterstock.
The three-day judicial review challenge of the decision to proscribe Palestine Action concluded on Tuesday (2 December 2025), with Counsel on both sides making final submissions ahead of the highly-anticipated judgment.
Garden Court North’s Mira Hammad and Rosalind Burgin act for the Claimant and co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, led by Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC of Matrix Chambers.
Since 5 July 2025, Palestine Action has been categorised as a terrorist group, making it a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to express support for the organisation. Membership of, or inviting support for, Palestine Action carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
On behalf of Ms Ammori, the Court was told that Palestine Action was a direct action and civil disobedience protest movement, which targeted premises said to be connected to the supply of weaponry from the UK to Israel. The Court was also told about Palestine Action’s now-defunct website, which stated, ‘Palestine Action is a direct action movement committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime. Using disruptive tactics, Palestine Action targets corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex and seeks to make it impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians’.
The four grounds to Ms Ammori’s High Court challenge
The legal challenge to the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was brought on four grounds.
Firstly, that proscription of Palestine Action is an unlawful interference with Articles 10 and/or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which are the right to freedom of expression and right to assembly and association. Under Article 14 of the ECHR, the enjoyment of these rights must be secured without discrimination.
Secondly, that the decision to proscribe was made without regard to obviously relevant considerations, including that Palestine Action sought to prevent conduct which it (and large sections of the British public) reasonably considered to constitute the aiding and abetting or facilitation of genocide and other serious violations of international law. Counsel for Ms Ammori also highlighted the wider impact that proscribing Palestine Action would have on freedom of expression.
Thirdly, that the decision was made without following the Secretary of State’s published policy.
Fourthly, that the decision was made in violation of the requirements of natural justice by failing to afford Ms Ammori (as Palestine Action’s co-founder) the opportunity to make representations in advance of the decision.
The Court heard that, by 6 November 2025, over 2,000 people had been arrested for holding signs reading “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action”, most on the basis of s13 Terrorism Act 2000. Some had provided witness statements in the judicial review.
The High Court also heard submissions for Professor Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights. This included a statement from five UN Special Rapporteurs expressing concern at the “unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist”, noting that the effect of proscription would be to “criminalise legitimate activities by innocent members of the group that do not contribute in any way to property damage by other members, let alone ‘terrorism’ which, if properly defined, the group has not committed.”
The case was considered by the President of the High Court’s King’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Steyn and Mr Justice Swift. Judgment is awaited.
Mira Hammad and Rosalind Burgin are instructed by Birnberg Peirce Solicitors and Kellys Solicitors. They are led by Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC of Matrix Chambers. Other junior counsel for Ms Ammori are Owen Greenhall and Audrey Mogan of Garden Court Chambers, and Paul Lukhurst, Rayan Fakhoury and Grant Kynaston of Blackstone Chambers.
Additional media
The Guardian – Ban on Palestine Action is repugnant and should be lifted, high court told
BBC – Palestine Action like the suffragettes, court hears
The Guardian – Replacement of judge in Palestine Action ban legal challenge ‘deeply concerning’
Sky News – Sally Rooney tells court new books may not be published in UK due to Palestine Action ban
For further information, please contact Alex Blair, Communications Manager at Garden Court North Chambers: ablair@gcnchambers.co.uk
