Government cites convictions, Elbit raid and US sanctions in defending the ban

On Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court began hearing Huda Ammori’s appeal in central London over last year’s proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Ammori is a co-founder of the direct-action group. Five judges are hearing the case, which is due to conclude Thursday. The designation placed Palestine Action alongside groups such as al-Qaida and Boko Haram, and judgment is expected at a later date.

The dispute concerns the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the proscription was lawful and proportionate. Ammori’s lawyers argue that the designation disproportionately interferes with the rights to freedom of speech and protest. Government counsel says the ruling should stand because of criminal convictions, a finding connected to a Palestine Action raid on an Elbit Systems factory and US sanctions imposed on the organisation.

Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, told the five judges: “Palestine Action never advocated for violence against the person and the home secretary has never advocated – and could not advocate – to the contrary.” He added: “The uncontroverted evidence shows moreover that [the] suffragettes, anti-war groups, environmental groups, animal rights protesters all used tactics similar to or more extreme than Palestine Action yet they were not regarded as terrorists or proscribed.”

Husain said the suffragettes’ activities included arson and bombing attacks but that they were now venerated as being on the right side of history. He argued that the Court of Appeal erred when it said Palestine Action’s tactics had “little or nothing in common with the suffragettes … or Iraq war protest groups”.

Ammori has argued that proscription represents a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of speech and protest. Husain said the ban had affected the entire Palestinian solidarity movement, regardless of any connection with Palestine Action, and had chilled the expression of journalists, academics and artists.

In written submissions for the home secretary, Sir James Eadie KC said the Court of Appeal’s decision was lawful and proportionate. He cited the convictions of four people, including one for grievous bodily harm, along with a finding of a “terrorist connection” in the case of a Palestine Action activist’s raid on a factory owned by the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems in Filton, near Bristol. Eadie also cited US sanctions imposed on Palestine Action as a global terrorist group.

“As a matter of law, the proscription of PA [Palestine Action] does not prevent public expressions of support for the Palestinian cause or opposition to Israel and to the Israel Defence Forces, or demonstrations targeted at Elbit,” Eadie said.

Police arrested at least 25 protesters outside the court on Wednesday. Sir Jonathan Porritt, a former director of Friends of the Earth who advised the Prince of Wales — now King Charles — for more than 30 years, was among those arrested. The protesters held placards emulating a tweet by Sarah Helm, the wife of the prime minister’s national security adviser, which police deemed did not meet the criminal threshold for supporting a terrorist organisation.

Helm, a journalist and author married to Jonathan Powell, wrote: “God help us authors who support Palestine and Palestine Action.” Porritt replaced the word “authors” with “CBEs,” while other protesters used “normal people”, “professors”, “Jews”, “holocaust survivors” and “bartenders”. The last protester to be arrested carried a placard reading: “God help us who are not married to the UK’s national security adviser who support Palestine and Palestine Action.”

The case is due to conclude Thursday, with judgment expected at a later date.