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

Ground 8 challenges the proscription order on the ground that the Home Secretary should have consulted PA before making it and, by failing to do so acted in breach of natural justice and/or contrary to Article 6 ECHR. I explained the two answers available to the Home Secretary at [89]-[90] of the interim relief judgment.

As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose, by analogy with Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 389, [2014] AC 700, [29]-[37] of the substantive judgment. Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.

Ground 8 is therefore reasonably arguable.