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

Sir James’s first submission in opposing permission was that the claimant could apply to the Home Secretary for PA to be deproscribed. If this was refused, she could appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (“POAC”). This was an adequate alternative remedy, which meant that judicial review was not available.

This point was also argued at the interim relief hearing. I concluded that it did not, on its own, supply a sufficient basis to say that there was no serious question to be tried, while indicating that the matter could be considered further at the permission hearing: see [57]-[61] of the interim relief judgment.

I asked the parties how the alternative remedy point should be determined. Sir James submitted that, if the point were a good one, the Secretary of State should not have to defend these proceedings substantively. The point was also likely to be of importance to future proscription decisions. Accordingly, he invited me to determine it as a preliminary issue, so that (if necessary) it could be appealed at this stage. Mr Husain did not oppose this course.

Where a defendant raises a point in opposition to a judicial review claim, which if decided in the defendant’s favour would be fatal to the claim, and the point may well arise in other cases, it may be appropriate for the court to determine the point as a preliminary issue. For a recent example, see R (Campbell) v Attorney General [2025] EWHC 1653 (Admin). I am satisfied that the same course is appropriate here, given the potential importance of the issue to other cases.

I therefore proceed to decide the alternative remedy point as a preliminary issue.