Court of Appeal restores Palestine Action proscription in Ammori ruling

The Court of Appeal has reinstated the proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, overturning an earlier ruling that had gone partly in Huda Ammori’s favor. The decision sharpens the legal boundary between protest and national security and sets out how far the Home Secretary’s counter-terrorism powers can go.

Why it matters: - The ruling restores the government’s ban on Palestine Action and confirms that support for a proscribed group can be treated as a national security issue. - The decision also narrows the space for arguing that coordinated direct action that crosses into criminal conduct is protected protest. - The case is being read as a test of how UK courts will treat the line between civil disobedience and terrorism law.

What happened: - The Court of Appeal in Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department overturned a Divisional Court ruling and restored the proscription order against Palestine Action in full. - Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action, challenged the ban on the ground that it unlawfully interfered with rights to protest and assembly. - Jo Morris, a barrister at Drystone Chambers, published analysis of the ruling. - Morris specializes in criminal and counter-terrorism law.

The details: - The proscription was tied to an incident at RAF Brize Norton in June 2025, when activists entered the airbase and damaged military aircraft. - The government also relied on what it described as a wider pattern of coordinated criminal activity linked to the organization, including incidents in Glasgow, Kent and Bristol. - Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary can proscribe an organization believed to be concerned in terrorism. - Morris argued that the statute gives the Home Secretary broad preventative powers and does not require the state to wait for a catastrophe. - Morris described civil disobedience as public, non-violent and openly carried out, with participants accepting arrest and legal consequences. - The court accepted the government’s description of Palestine Action as covert and structured to avoid detection. - The court also accepted that an “underground manual” described operations carried out by anonymous cells. - Morris said the court saw the conduct as organized unlawful activity pursued through concealment and coordination. - Morris stressed that the proscription does not criminalize support for Palestine, criticism of Israel or protest against the defense industry. - The ban criminalizes support for a proscribed organization, not political views in general. - Jo Morris is a barrister at Drystone Chambers in London, working in criminal law, military justice and public law, including the law of armed conflict. - Morris’s experience spans terrorism, homicide, serious violence and fraud. - Morris is a Grade 4 Prosecutor and sits on the CPS counter-terrorism and serious crime panels.

Between the lines: - The ruling gives the executive broad room to act before violence escalates, which strengthens the government’s hand in counter-terrorism cases. - The decision also suggests that courts may give less weight to protest framing when an organization uses secrecy, coordination and property damage as tactics. - The judgment leaves intact the distinction between lawful political dissent and material support for a banned organization. - Morris framed the case as one about the boundary between political expression and conduct that threatens national security.

What's next: - The proscription is now restored unless further legal action changes the position. - The ruling is likely to be cited in future disputes over protest tactics, direct action and the reach of the Terrorism Act 2000. - The case may also shape how activists, prosecutors and courts assess when protest activity becomes support for a proscribed group.

The bottom line: - The Court of Appeal has backed the government’s power to ban Palestine Action and signaled that concealed, coordinated direct action can fall on the wrong side of UK terrorism law. - More information: Jo Morris’s LinkedIn profile