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

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against the High Court judge's refusal of interim relief preventing the Secretary of State's order proscribing Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000. The court applied the established interim relief framework (serious issue to be tried; adequacy of damages; balance of convenience) as framed in American Cyanamid and subsequent authority, and emphasised the particular weight to be given to national security considerations when assessing the balance of convenience. The court accepted that at least one serious issue was arguable, namely proportionality under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, and considered other grounds (including ratione materiae and improper purpose) but found their prospects uncertain or dependent on further evidence. Applying the balance of convenience, the court concluded that the public interest in maintaining the Order in force, given the national security assessment recorded in the Secretary of State's statement and the statutory framework (including sections 1, 3 and Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000), outweighed the prejudice to the claimant. The availability of alternative remedies (notably an appeal to the Proscribed Organisation Appeals Commission under section 5) was also noted as a potential factor. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason to hear the appeal.

This is an application for permission to appeal against Chamberlain J's refusal of interim relief that would have suspended an order of the Secretary of State proscribing Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Order was laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament and was to come into force the day after the hearing. The claimant, a founder and member of Palestine Action, commenced judicial review and sought interim relief to prevent the Order taking effect pending the judicial review.

Background and procedural posture:

• Palestine Action is a network formed circa 2020 engaging in direct action against organisations it says are complicit in breaches of international law. A specific incident on 20 June 2025 involving damage to military aircraft led to the Secretary of State's decision, announced 23 June 2025, to proscribe the organisation.
• The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on 27 June 2025 and applied for interim relief; there was to be a substantive permission hearing in July 2025. The High Court refused interim relief and refused permission to appeal; the claimant sought urgent permission to appeal to this court, which heard the application out of hours and delivered this approved judgment the same evening.

Relief sought: An interim order restraining the Order of proscription from taking effect until determination of the judicial review claim.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the claim raised a serious issue to be tried, including whether proscription exceeded the Secretary of State's powers or was disproportionate under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR and contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
• How the balance of convenience should be struck given the public interest, including national security, and the imminence of the Order.
• The relevance of alternative remedies such as appeal to the Proscribed Organisation Appeals Commission (POAC).

Court's reasoning and findings:

• The court accepted the High Court's approach to interim relief in public law cases: identify a serious issue to be tried, consider adequacy of damages (rarely adequate in public law), and weigh the balance of convenience, with special regard to national security where relevant.
• The judge correctly found at least one serious issue, namely proportionality under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, while other grounds were arguable but of uncertain strength and potentially dependent on classified or further evidence.
• On the balance of convenience the judge and this court placed substantial weight on the public interest in national security and the executive assessment recorded in the Secretary of State's statement and Explanatory Memorandum; suspending the Order even briefly would, on the evidence before the court, deny protections identified as necessary by the executive.
• The judge weighed the harms to the claimant if interim relief were refused (including potential criminal liability and collateral effects) but concluded those harms derived from deliberate non-compliance with an Order that would be in force pending any later overturning, and therefore deserved limited weight against the public interest.
• The availability of POAC and the statutory route for de-proscription was acknowledged as an alternative remedy which may be relevant to some grounds.

The Court concluded there was no arguable error in the judge's approach and no real prospect of a successful appeal; permission to appeal was refused.

Permission to appeal was refused and the High Court judge's refusal of interim relief was upheld. The court held that while the claimant raised at least one serious issue (proportionality under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR), the balance of convenience properly weighed in favour of refusing interim relief because of the significant public interest in national security and the protections the Order was intended to provide; no error of law or misappreciation of the evidence was identified.

This appeal is from the decision of Mr Justice Chamberlain in the Administrative Court (King's Bench Division), Royal Courts of Justice, AC-2025-LON-002122, in which he refused interim relief and refused permission to appeal. The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against that refusal; the Court of Appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 848) refused permission.