‘This post responds to important issues raised by Dane Luo and Gabriel Tan with regard to one of the grounds upheld by the Divisional Court in the judicial review of Palestine Action’s proscription (R (Ammori) v Home Secretary [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin)). The ground was upheld on the basis that the Home Secretary’s proscription decision considered the operational advantages of Palestine Action’s proscription inconsistently with the government’s own proscription policy. The policy refers to factors for the Home Secretary to consider in deciding whether to proscribe an organisation concerned in terrorism and is referred to in this policy paper. A central premise on which the Court’s reasoning hangs is that the policy’s purpose is to impose a limitation on the government’s discretion to proscribe organisations meeting the statutory threshold for being concerned in terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd March 2026
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
