The Court of Appeal’s decision in Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department forces into the open a difficult question: when does direct action become terrorism?
Palestine Action was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 following a series of incidents involving organised criminal damage directed at military and defence related targets. The decision was challenged by Huda Ammori, one of the group’s co-founders, who argued that the proscription unlawfully interfered with rights of protest and assembly. Although the Divisional Court initially ruled in her favour on limited grounds, the Court of Appeal restored the proscription order and delivered a firm reminder of the latitude afforded to the Home Secretary when making proscription decisions in the interests of national security.
Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Secretary of State may proscribe an organisation believed to be “concerned in terrorism”. It is a broad power, and intentionally so. The purpose of counter terrorism law is preventative rather than reactive. The state is not required to wait for catastrophe before acting.
The proscription followed an incident at RAF Brize Norton in June 2025 when activities entered the airbase and damaged military aircraft with spray paint. That incident did not stand alone. The Government relied on a wider pattern of coordinated criminal activity linked to Palestine Action, including incidents in Glasgow, Kent and Bristol. One of the questions before the court was whether these acts amounted to militant but legitimate protest or crossed the statutory threshold into terrorism.
Palestine Action presents itself as a movement committed to civil disobedience rather than violence. Civil disobedience has a long and honourable history in the UK. Some of the people who break the law in order to affirm an injustice are vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an instance in point. Civil disobedience can take many forms, but it amounts to a public, non-violence act contrary to law, done with the aim of exposing injustice. Its practitioners accept arrest and legal consequences as part of the protest.
That was not the view of the Court of Appeal of Palestine Action. The Government’s characterisation of the organisation as covert and structured to avoid detection, was accepted. Its own “underground manual” described operations performed by anonymous cells. This was not civil disobedience undertaken in the open, with the acceptance of legal consequences. It was organised unlawful activity pursued through concealment and coordination.
Importantly, the proscription of Palestine Action does not criminalise support for Palestine, criticism of Israel or protest against the defence industry. It criminalises support for a proscribed organisation. The distinction matters. A fair society tolerates vigorous political dissent. It is under no obligation to tolerate a risk to national security.
Ammori is not therefore about the legitimacy of protest. It is about the boundary between political expression and conduct which threatens national security. The Court of Appeal’s answer was unequivocal. Protecting the public is a matter for the elected executive, and the courts will not stand in its way.
Jo Morris
Drystone Chambers
0207 404 1881
