R (on the application of Ammori) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0099

Parties

Appellant(s)

Huda Ammori

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Was the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 lawful?

Facts

This appeal concerns the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “Home Secretary”) in June 2025 to proscribe the direct action protest group Palestine Action pursuant to the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 confers a power on the Home Secretary to add to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 (section 3(3)). This power may be exercised only if the Home Secretary believes an organisation “is concerned in terrorism” (section 3(4)). An organisation is concerned in terrorism if it: commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism (section 3(5)). One element of the definition of “terrorism” is the use or threat of action where action involves: serious violence against a person; serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life other than that of the person committing the action; creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system (section 1(2)). The claimant, Ms Huda Ammori, is one of two co-founders of Palestine Action. Ms Ammori has challenged the decision of the Home Secretary to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under section 3 and schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (the “Proscription Decision”). The Proscription Decision was announced to Parliament on 23 June 2025, and the implementing order came into effect, after approval by positive resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, on 5 July 2025 (the “Proscription Order”). The Home Secretary has a long-standing policy relating to the exercise of the section 3 power, the current version dated 27 February 2025 (the “Policy”). Ms Ammori challenged the Proscription Decision. The Divisional Court decided in her favour on two grounds, finding that the Decision was unlawful because: (i) the Home Secretary’s reasoning in support of the decision was inconsistent with her Policy; and (ii) proscription was incompatible with articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal. It concluded that the Proscription Decision was lawful because: (i) the Home Secretary had correctly applied her Policy; and (ii) proscription amounted to a proportionate interference with articles 10 and 11 ECHR. Ms Ammori now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

14 July 2026

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Sales

Lord Leggatt

Lady Simler

Permission to Appeal decision date

29 July 2026

Permission to Appeal decision

Granted in part

Permission to Appeal is granted in relation to Ground 1 only (and is refused in relation to Ground 2) The hearing is to be expedited - to be heard in the course of Michaelmas term 2026

Back to top