Introduction
Introduction
The claimant is one of the founders of Palestine Action (“PA”). She challenges the Home Secretary’s decision to make an order adding PA to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”).
The Home Secretary announced on Monday 23 June 2025 that she would lay a draft order proscribing PA. The present claim, challenging that decision, was sent to the court on the evening of Friday 27 June. The order was laid in draft on Monday 30 June and approved by affirmative resolutions of the House of Commons (on 2 July) and House of Lords (on 3 July).
After an initial hearing on 30 June, I heard an application for interim relief on 4 July. In a judgment handed down that afternoon, I held that the claim raised at least one serious issue to be tried, but that the balance of public interest was against the grant of interim relief: [2025] EWHC 1708 (Admin). Later that evening, the Court of Appeal heard and refused an application for permission to appeal: [2025] EWCA Civ 848.
The proscription order was made on 4 July and came into force at 00:01 on 5 July.
After a CLOSED hearing on 16 July, at which the claimant’s interests were represented by Special Advocates, I announced in OPEN that I had decided to make a declaration under s. 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) and had given the Home Secretary permission to withhold sensitive material for the purposes of permission only, on the basis that further directions would be given for the resolution of disclosure issues if permission were granted.
I have read the CLOSED material filed to date.
The defendant filed Summary Grounds of Defence. The claimant filed an Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds, incorporating points raised at the interim relief hearing, in respect of which I gave permission to amend on 4 July.
The hearing to determine permission to apply for judicial review was on 21 July. Submissions for the claimant were made in OPEN by Raza Husain KC and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC and in CLOSED by Mr Tim Buley KC, lead Special Advocate. Sir James Eadie KC made submissions in OPEN and CLOSED for the defendant.
- 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
![AC-2025-LON-002122 - [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)