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

Ground 6 is that the Home Secretary failed to apply her policy. Now that the decision documents have been disclosed, the basis on which this ground is pursued is that “no adequate proportionality assessment was undertaken” (see para. 63 of the skeleton argument for the permission hearing), given in particular that (on the Home Secretary’s own assessment) only three of PA’s 385 actions would meet the statutory definition of terrorism.

The answer to this ground is the same as given under ground 5. In circumstances where the court will have to conduct its own assessment of the proportionality of the proscription order, there is nothing to be gained by adding this ground. If the proscription was a proportionate restriction of the Article 10 and 11 rights of the claimant and others, nothing would be gained by considering separately whether the Home Secretary’s decision documents were deficient in this regard.

There is no good reason to grant permission on ground 6.