Palestine Action co-founder faces wait for High Court decision over group’s ban

The co-founder of Palestine Action faces a wait to discover whether her High Court challenge over the banning of the group as a terror organisation has been successful.

Huda Ammori is bringing a legal action against the Home Office over then-home secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws.

The ban, which began on July 5, made membership of, or support for, the direct-action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The Home Office is defending the claim.

After a three-day hearing at the High Court in London, the judges hearing the challenge said they would give their decision at a later date.

Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, said on Tuesday: “We’re obviously going to reserve our decision in this case. We will be in touch with the parties in the usual way once the judgment is ready to hand down.”

During the hearing, Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, said the ban was unprecedented and “direct action groups of all kinds” could be banned under the conditions used.

He continued: “The suffragettes would have been liable to proscription if the Terrorism Act 2000 regime had been in force at the turn of the 20th century.”

Mr Husain told the court there had been more than 2,000 arrests after Palestine Action’s proscription, including “priests, teachers, pensioners, retired British Army officers” and an “81-year-old former magistrate”.

The court in London heard written evidence from Normal People author Sally Rooney in support of the challenge, after she previously said she would donate earnings from her books and BBC adaptations of novels to Palestine Action.

Ms Rooney said it was “unclear” whether any UK company can make payments to her under anti-terror laws and that if she was prevented from profiting from her work, her income would be “enormously restricted”.

The Irish writer also said it is “almost certain” she cannot publish or produce new work in the UK while the ban remains in force.

She continued: “If Palestine Action is still proscribed by the time my next book is due for publication, then that book will be available to readers all over the world and in dozens of languages, but will be unavailable to readers in the United Kingdom simply because no-one will be permitted to publish it, unless I am content to give it away for free.”

Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said the ban “strikes a fair balance between interference with the rights of the individuals affected and the interests of the community”.

In written submissions, he also said the Home Secretary did not have to consider what proportion of a group’s actions were “concerned in terrorism”.

He continued: “Parliament intended the proscription regime to be available even where only some of the activities of an organisation are ‘concerned in terrorism’.”

Sir James added that the ban has not prevented people from protesting against Israel’s actions in Gaza or in support of Palestinians.

He later said: “Whilst it has at all times been open to supporters of Palestine Action to protest against its proscription without breaking the law, certain individuals have instead repeatedly sought to flout Palestine Action’s proscription.”

Sir James also said that proscription’s aim is “stifling organisations concerned in terrorism and for members of the public to face criminal liability for joining or supporting such organisations”.

He continued: “That serves to ensure proscribed organisations are deprived of the oxygen of publicity as well as both vocal and financial support.”