Conclusion
Conclusion
For these reasons, the preliminary issue is determined in the claimant’s favour. An application to deproscribe, coupled with an appeal to POAC if the application is refused, is not a suitable alternative remedy in the circumstances of this case. The existence of this remedy is therefore not a proper basis for refusing permission or relief in the exercise of the court’s discretion, in circumstances where Parliament has not ousted the judicial review jurisdiction in respect of decisions to proscribe under s. 3(3)(a) of the 2000 Act.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Further evidence
- Preliminary issue
- The alternative remedy point
- Discussion
- The test to be applied in assessing whether an alternative remedy is adequate
- Factor (1): Timing
- Factor (2): The nature of the detriment
- Factor (3): Criminal cases
- Factor (4): Forum and procedure
- Factor (5): Would the availability of judicial review render the deproscription/POAC route a dead letter?
- The Kurdistan Workers’ Party case
- Conclusion
- The claimant’s grounds of challenge
- Ground 2
- Ground 1
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Ground 7
- Ground 8
- Conclusions
![AC-2025-LON-002122 - [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)