CA-2025-001983 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1311

By an appellant’s notice submitted on 8 August 2025, the Secretary of State sought permission to appeal. Section 5 of the appellant’s notice asks the appellant to “set out the order (or part of the order) you wish to appeal against”. The Secretary of State referred to the attached grounds of appeal. From those, it is clear that the Secretary of State was seeking to appeal against paragraph 3 of the order of the Judge. Paragraph 1 of the grounds of appeal identified the grounds as (references to “J/” are references to paragraphs in the judgment of the judge):

“a.

The Court diluted the test to be applied when determining whether an individual has an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review.

b.

The Court erred in relying on the fact that judicial review would be more expeditious than an appeal to POAC [J/§§34-36].

c.

The Court erred in relying upon “the detriment” the Respondent and others like her would incur would they to follow the process provided by Parliament [J/§§37-43].

d.

The Court adopted a flawed analysis of the implications for those charged with criminal offences based upon the organisation’s proscription and, in particular, erred in concluding that any person facing criminal proceedings for a proscription offence can mount a defence to the prosecution on the basis that the Applicant’s order for proscription was unlawful [J§§44-49].

e.

The Court erred in its analysis of the differences between POAC and the High Court when relying upon ‘forum and procedure’ [J/§§50-59].

f.

The Court wrongly rejected the Applicant’s submission that the availability of judicial review would render the deproscription / POAC route a dead letter [J/§§60-62].

g.

The Judge failed to follow R (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 644 (Admin), in which Richards J concluded that an appeal to POAC was a suitable alternative remedy to judicial review [J/§§63-67].”

Permission to appeal was granted by Underhill LJ by order dated 21 August 2025. The appeal was heard a month later on 25 September 2025.