Huda Ammori, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an appeal concerning interim relief in public law proceedings, the appellate court reviews the lower court’s exercise of discretion. It does not rehear the application or substitute its own assessment.

The court must assess whether there is a serious issue to be tried, the adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. That balance includes the wider public interest. Where national security is engaged, great respect is due to the executive’s assessment of the risk and its weight.

An order remains binding unless and until set aside. A judge may therefore give limited weight to harm arising from a person’s deliberate decision to disobey it.

The appellant founded and belonged to Palestine Action. She sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Chamberlain J found that at least the proportionality challenge under Articles 10 and 11 raised a serious issue to be tried. He nevertheless refused interim relief suspending the proscription order. The public interest in the national-security protections conferred by the order outweighed the potential harm if relief were refused and the claim later succeeded.

The judge also refused permission to appeal and a stay. The appellant urgently renewed her application before the Court of Appeal. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of establishing an error in the judge’s assessment of the balance of convenience.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The judge made no arguable error of law, and his conclusion was reasonably open to him on the evidence. There was neither a real prospect of a successful appeal nor another compelling reason for an appeal.

2. An appeal against the refusal of interim relief is ordinarily a review rather than a rehearing. The Court of Appeal could intervene only if the decision was wrong in law, unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity, or outside the range reasonably open to the judge. It could not substitute its own discretion: R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 840 applied.

3. The public-law framework required consideration of whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be adequate and where the balance of convenience lay. The last inquiry balanced prejudice to the parties and the wider public interest. The interest in executive government giving effect to a policy carried particular significance where both Houses of Parliament had approved the draft order.

4. Where national security forms part of the public interest, the court must show great respect for the executive’s assessment of whether a risk exists and the weight it should receive. Interests capable of outweighing national security may be difficult to establish. The judge properly gave significant weight to that interest and permissibly concluded that even a short suspension would withhold important public protections.

5. The judge correctly considered the consequences on the hypothesis that the judicial review later succeeded. An order remains binding until set aside. He could therefore give limited weight to criminal liability and associated harm arising from a deliberate decision to disobey the proscription order.

6. The judge recognised the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11. Former members remained free to oppose Israel’s actions through lawful speech and protest. Proscription did not criminalise past association or aggravate earlier conduct. It prohibited specified future activity supporting a proscribed organisation.

7. The judge addressed the chronology, possible chilling effect, employment and educational consequences, risk of inadvertent offending, and the clarity of the order. His reference to a possible alternative remedy before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission was conditional and had no material effect on the balancing exercise.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The court found no arguable legal error or other basis for interfering with the refusal of interim relief: [2025] EWCA Civ 848.

2. High Court, Administrative Court: Chamberlain J refused interim relief suspending the proscription order. He also refused permission to appeal and a stay pending a renewed application. No neutral citation is stated in the judgment.