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

The claimant sought urgent interim relief to restrain the Secretary of State from making, or to suspend the effect of, an order proscribing Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000. The court accepted it had power in principle to suspend secondary legislation but applied the established American Cyanamid framework adapted to public law, giving significant weight to the executive’s national security assessment and to Parliament’s affirmation of the draft order.

The court considered the claimant’s grounds: (i) ultra vires / improper purpose (s.3 Terrorism Act 2000) — rejected as raising no serious issue; (ii) incompatibility with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR under s.6 Human Rights Act 1998 — held to raise a serious question to be tried (proportionality issue) but not shown to have strong prospects at this stage; (iii) that PA was not "concerned in terrorism" (s.1 and s.3) — rejected; and (iv) complaints about irrelevant considerations, failure to gather material, failure to follow policy, breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010), and breach of natural justice (failure to consult) — possibly arguable but dependent on disclosure and possibly affected by CLOSED material. The court concluded that, on balance, the public interest in immediate proscription outweighed the prejudice to the claimant and refused interim relief.

The claimant is a co-founder of Palestine Action, a direct-action network. After an incident at RAF Brize Norton on 20 June 2025, the Home Secretary announced an intention to proscribe Palestine Action and laid a draft proscription order which was subsequently affirmed by both Houses of Parliament. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings and applied for urgent interim relief to prevent the making of the order or to suspend its effect pending a permission hearing and subsequent substantive challenge.

Nature of the application:

• Interim relief to restrain the Secretary of State from making the proscription order under s.3(3) Terrorism Act 2000 or, if made, to suspend its effect pending resolution of the claimant’s judicial review challenge.

Key issues before the court:

• Jurisdiction and appropriate form of interim relief to suspend the effect of secondary legislation;
• Whether the claimant raised serious issues to be tried on grounds including ultra vires / improper purpose, incompatibility with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR (s.6 HRA), whether PA is ‘concerned in terrorism’ (s.1 and s.3 Terrorism Act 2000), failure to take relevant matters into account / taking into account irrelevant matters, failure to follow policy, breach of the equalities duty, and breach of natural justice (lack of consultation); and
• The balance of convenience given the weight to be afforded to national security assessments and Parliament’s resolution.

Court’s reasoning in summary:

• The court accepted it had power to grant a remedy suspending the legal effect of the order and that an interim declaration or stay could, in principle, be an appropriate form of relief.
• American Cyanamid principles (as applied in public law) govern interim relief; the public law context requires the court to give substantial weight to the executive’s national security judgment and to Parliament’s affirmation of the instrument.
• The court analysed each pleaded ground. It found the statutory language of the Terrorism Act 2000 clear and that the Act permits proscription where the statutory tests are met; the ultra vires/improper purpose challenge did not raise a serious issue. The claimant’s argument that PA was not “concerned in terrorism” failed on both the statutory definition of organisation and the claimant’s own evidence of coordinated activity.
• Grounds alleging irrationality, failure to take relevant considerations into account, failure to follow policy, and breach of equality duty could not be finally assessed without disclosure and possibly CLOSED material; they might raise arguable points but were not clearly persuasive at this interim stage.
• The Article 10/11 proportionality challenge was the only ground that raised a serious question to be tried, but its strength could depend on closed and open material the Secretary of State might deploy; it did not, on the available material, show strong prospects of success.
• On the balance of convenience the court concluded that the potential harm to national security and the public interest in maintaining the order (including the risk of pre-emptive action by the organisation) outweighed the prejudice to the claimant arising from immediate proscription. Accordingly interim relief was refused; the court noted that any short-term stay application should be addressed to the Court of Appeal.

Procedural notes: the Secretary of State indicated an intention to apply for a s.6 Justice and Security Act 2013 declaration to permit consideration of CLOSED material at the permission hearing; POAC and statutory de-proscription and appeal routes were discussed as alternative remedies but were not held to be dispositive at the interim stage.

The application for interim relief is refused. The court held that, although the claimant raised a serious issue to be tried on proportionality under s.6 Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 10 and 11 ECHR), the public interest in immediate proscription, the executive’s national security assessment and Parliament’s affirmative resolution outweighed the prejudice to the claimant. Other grounds either did not raise serious questions or their strength could not be established on the material available and were unlikely, at this stage, to justify suspending the order.