AC-2025-LON-002122 - [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin)

As explained in the claimant’s skeleton argument for permission, this ground alleges that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on (i) the scope and nature of PA’s activities, (ii) the impact of proscription on particular individuals associated with PA, including vulnerable categories such as young persons and elderly supporters and (iii) the broader implications for other direct action and protest groups, such as environmentalists and trade unionists.

At the interim relief stage, I had not seen any disclosure of the documents before the Home Secretary when the challenged decision was taken. I have now seen these documents. They include a Community Impact Assessment, which discussed a range of evidence about how the proscription would be perceived and about its possible effects, including evidence as to perceptions of environmental and other direct action groups. In the light of this and the other documents before the Home Secretary, and given the legal position as outlined in [82] of the interim relief judgment, I do not consider this point to be reasonably arguable.