Crisis of Credibility

Huda Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Editorial - Nick King

10 August 2025

Considerable time was spent during Huda Ammori's application for judicial review concerned with the Claimant's petition for a stay of Yvette Cooper's proscribing order. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC had highlighted, during the permissions hearing of 21 July 2025, the risk that the order would be applied in cavalier fashion to ensnare legitimate protest excluded from its restrictions relating specifically to Palestine Action. Justice Chamberlain had decided:

It will remain lawful for the claimant and other persons who were members of PA prior to proscription to continue to express their opposition to Israel's actions in Gaza and elsewhere, including by drawing attention to what they regard as Israel's genocide and other serious violations of international law ...

Returning to the Royal Courts of Justice on 30 July 2025 for the permissions judgment, both barristers for the Claimant had argued for the matter of the stay to be revisited given copious evidence that, irrespective of prior PA membership, such over-eagerness had indeed frequently materialised. Chamberlain remained unpersuaded, deferring to the appeal and the reasoning of his previous ruling.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, from the moment of initial protests following introduction of the banning order, was adamant transgression involved breach of a 'serious law': "the law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced." The provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 can undeniably carry serious consequences: a maximum 14-year sentence; a fine of up to £5,000; exclusion from certain professional occupations ...

Fallacious proximity

Reaction to the introduction and policing of the order has been unexpectedly widespread, both nationwide in the form of demonstrations of popular dissent and from organisations committed to protection of civic rights. Amnesty International condemned the Government's excessive and disproportionate interference; Liberty pinpointed the chilling effect this would have on the thousands of people who campaign for Palestine, and their ability to express themselves and take part in protests; UN Human Rights Chief, Volker Türk, has identified an impermissible restriction at odds with the UK's obligations under international human rights law.

Most notably, the collective-action group, Defend Our Juries (DOJ), organised a co-ordinated popular protest on Saturday 9 August 2025 in Parliament Square, London, in which 500 citizens pledged to defy the letter of the law with a trivially but literal contravening statement of support for Palestine Action. In the event, by DOJ's calculation, between 600-700 people turned out, presenting on cue cardboard signs articulating a message in defiance of the reach of the Act.

Supplementary police personnel had been drafted in from regional forces for an operation that often consisted in the physical lifting of protestors into a fleet of waiting marked vans. The action passed off peacefully, with nothing on the dissenting agenda resembling 'terrorism' as normally understood. Throughout the day, 532 arrests were made, 522 of which arose during a protest organised to oppose the illegitimization of a performative protest movement. Many of the participants again were senior citizens, the average age of those arrested being about 55 years old. Reflect on that: 522 bailed - under s13 of the Terrorism Act - during a passive protest against the prohibition of protest.

Photo: Agency Spot the Home Secreterrorist

'Not many people know that ...'

The Home Secretary has been somewhat fertile with the actualité in justifying the proscription order to the public. She declared: "many people may not yet know the reality of this organisation, but the assessments are very clear - this is not a non-violent organisation," although she has had time enough to snatch away the cloak that supposedly hides a proverbial menacing dagger. The statement continued: "It also follows an assessment from the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre [JTAC] that the group prepares for terrorism, as well as concerning information referencing plans and ideas for further attacks, the details of which cannot yet be publicly reported due to ongoing legal proceedings," without specifying which legal proceedings have invoked charges for alleged future 'attacks'. It was recorded at the permissions application for judicial review on 21 July 2025 that JTAC had presented evidence of only three from 385 examined instances that might be classified as terrorism: the group did not advocate violence against persons and property damage was relatively minor.

Yvette Cooper continued: "tens of thousands of people marched in London today [9 August 2025] to protest in support of Palestinian rights, working with the police to carry out their demonstration largely without incident." The organisers of those 'tens of thousands' of marchers are amongst dozens of arrestees subject to ongoing criminal prosecutions following what can most accurately be described as an entrapment operation sprung by the Metropolitan Police during a peaceful march in London on 18 January 2025.

Crisis of credibility

While arrangements are in play for a successor DOJ action in September, no reports have yet come to light of spontaneous public assemblies demanding deproscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult nor the Russian Imperial Movement. A DOJ spokeserson summarised what had just taken place in Parliament Square:

The fact that unprecedented numbers came out today risking arrest and possible imprisonment shows how repulsed and ashamed people are about our government's ongoing complicity in a livestreamed genocide, and the lengths people are prepared to go to [to] defend this country's ancient liberties.

The Secretary of State's assertion of redacted information condemning Palestine Action's involvement in violent direct action presents an unfalsifiable rhetorical trap, engagement with which itself could incur prosecution*. But questions are not so deftly parried regarding the Home Secretary's exercise of discretionary privilege and national security, nor, more widely, the compatibility of the UK's extant anti-terrorism laws with accepted norms of a democratic society. Whatever might be the result at judicial review, there will remain issues outstanding to resolve here. It is clear now, however, that a significant number of people from diverse social backgrounds consider the International Court of Justice's finding of plausible genocide in the occupied Palestinian territories rather more persuasive than the Government's proscription of Palestine Action.

* For clarity, nothing articulated here should be considered as an evaluation of Palestine Action itself.