![AC-2025-LON-002122 - [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Ground 2
Ground 2
In my interim relief judgment, I said that ground 2 raises a serious question to be tried. I have carefully considered the six points made by the Secretary of State in her Summary Grounds of Defence and the other points made by Sir James at the permission hearing. I have also read the evidence, both OPEN and CLOSED, and considered the oral submissions of Ms Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh. I consider it reasonably arguable that the proscription order amounts to a disproportionate interference with the Article 10 and 11 rights of the claimant and others. That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.
- 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