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

This ground has two aspects. First, it is said that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully in taking into account irrelevant considerations, namely, (i) whether PA’s methods were morally or politically justifiable, (ii) the lost revenue arising from PA’s direct action; and (iii) the views of pro-Israel lobby groups.

None of these points discloses a reasonably arguable error of law. It was open to the Home Secretary to consider that direct action involving serious damage to property was illegitimate. It may fall to be considered in another case whether loss of revenue can be taken into account in deciding whether damage to property is serious. In this case, it does not matter, because, even without taking these losses into account, the Home Secretary could properly conclude that the property damage caused in PA’s direct actions, which ran into millions of pounds, was serious. There is no good reason why the Home Secretary should not take into account the view of pro-Israel lobby groups, provided that she did not treat those views as determinative—and the decision documents make clear that she did not.

Nor do I consider that there is any point in debating whether the Home Secretary failed properly to address the fact that PA seek to prevent conduct which many regard as amounting to genocide and/or other serious violations of international law, the impact on free speech, the impact of proscription on direct action or the availability of civil injunctions or other less onerous ways of dealing with direct action. All these matters will have to be considered as part of the court’s own assessment whether the proscription order was a proportionate restriction on the Article 10 and 11 rights of the claimant and others. If the court concludes that it was, there is no realistic prospect of the Home Secretary reaching a contrary view. If it was not, it does not matter whether the Home Secretary was required to have regard to the matters relied upon by the claimant (bearing in mind the legal position set out in [82] of the interim relief judgment) or whether on a proper analysis of the decision documents she did so.

There is accordingly no good reason to grant permission on ground 5.