The government's attempt to block an appeal against the ban on Palestine Action has been unsuccessful. In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeal has paved the way for a judicial review of the ban, which could have far-reaching implications. The co-founder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori, secured permission for this review earlier this year. The Home Office, however, remains steadfast in its stance, emphasizing that Palestine Action is still a proscribed group and that supporters will face legal consequences. The ban, effective since July 5th, criminalizes membership and support for the direct action group. This has led to over 2,100 arrests in demonstrations, with protesters holding signs opposing genocide and supporting Palestine Action. The government's defense included a claim that Parliament had established a specific, alternative process for appealing against banning orders. Under terrorism laws, banned groups can request a review by the Home Office, a process that can take months. If the ban persists, the matter can be reconsidered by judges in the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a semi-secret court. This process could potentially delay the resolution of the case for a year or more. Lawyers for Ms. Ammori argued that the unique circumstances of the ban and the group's public support warranted an immediate review by the High Court. They pointed out that Parliament had not explicitly ruled out a faster challenge process, despite creating a slower alternative. Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, agreed, stating that Ms. Ammori could challenge the initial decision to proscribe Palestine Action without waiting for the POAC process. She emphasized that a judicial review would provide a quicker and more authoritative means of assessing the lawfulness of the ban. Ms. Ammori's legal team also secured a second application to expand her case in November, allowing her to present broader grounds for challenging the ban's legality. Ms. Ammori expressed confidence in the upcoming judicial review, criticizing the government's attempt to avoid scrutiny as a dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources. She highlighted the escalating campaign by Palestine Action, which has included criminal damage to national security infrastructure, intimidation, alleged violence, and serious injuries. Despite the government's stance, the Court of Appeal's ruling has opened a path for a more comprehensive legal challenge, leaving the future of the ban in question.
