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

The discretionary power to proscribe an organisation under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not confined by a policy which lists non-exhaustive factors. Operational benefits and the organisation’s terrorist and non-terrorist activities may be relevant to future terrorism risk.

Article 17 has an exceptional and high threshold. It does not prevent Articles 10 and 11 being engaged by lawful individuals affected by the chilling effect of proscription. Proportionality requires the four-stage Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) approach. In national-security cases, courts must give appropriate, potentially wide, weight to the executive’s specialist assessment and democratic accountability. On the facts, those considerations outweighed the interference with Convention rights.

Huda Ammori challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Divisional Court dismissed the procedural fairness, consideration and discrimination grounds, but upheld challenges based on the Proscription Policy and proportionality. It declared the decision unlawful and quashed the decision and implementing order: [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin).

The Home Secretary appealed. The issues were whether the Policy permitted consideration of operational benefits and all relevant organisational activities, whether Article 17 excluded Articles 10 and 11, and whether proscription struck a proportionate fair balance. Ms Ammori sought permission to cross-appeal on procedural fairness and discrimination.

1. Disposition. The Home Secretary’s appeal was allowed. The Proscription Decision was lawful and the Divisional Court’s quashing order was set aside. Permission to cross-appeal was refused.
2. Policy Ground. Public-administration policies are interpreted objectively by their language and context. They are guides rather than statutory rules and should not be read in an excessively analytical way. The Proscription Policy expressly identified non-exhaustive factors. It did not confine the Home Secretary to factors similar to those listed. Operational efficacy was relevant to proportionality and could point either towards or away from proscription. The Home Secretary could consider the organisation’s complete range of activities, including recruitment, fundraising, radicalisation and non-terrorist activity, when assessing future terrorism risk.
3. Convention rights and proportionality. Article 17 has a high threshold and applies only in exceptional or extreme cases. It did not remove the Article 10 and 11 rights of lawful individuals who wished to protest or express support. The court applied the four-stage test in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39: sufficiently important objectives, rational connection, no satisfactory less intrusive measure, and fair balance. Following Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] UKSC 30, the court assessed proportionality afresh because the case had major social and political significance.
4. Margin and application. National-security decisions require appropriate respect for the executive’s institutional competence, democratic accountability and specialist assessment of future risk. All four proportionality stages could be informed by that margin. The objectives of protecting national security and the rights of others were important, and proscription was rationally connected to them. Civil remedies, individual orders and ordinary criminal prosecutions would not disrupt the covert organisation as a network. The chilling effect and other interference with Articles 10 and 11 were outweighed by the escalating campaign, covert cells, serious property damage, risks to third parties, threats to national security and the operational benefits of degrading recruitment, funding and infrastructure.
5. Cross-appeal. The Terrorism Act 2000 impliedly excluded a duty to consult the target organisation before proscription. Its statutory scheme provided no consultation process but did provide for deproscription and appeal. The Article 14 challenge had no realistic prospect of success because other protest groups were not materially analogous: they had not been assessed as concerned in terrorism. There was also no evidence of disproportionate impact on persons of Palestinian ethnicity, origin or nationality.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court’s quashing order was set aside, and permission to cross-appeal was refused: [2026] EWCA Civ 721.
• Divisional Court, King’s Bench Division: The procedural fairness, consideration and discrimination grounds were dismissed. The Policy and Proportionality Grounds succeeded; the Proscription Decision and relevant order were declared unlawful and quashed: [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin).