Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori challenges UK proscription in Supreme Court

Huda Ammori, co-founder of the activist group Palestine Action, told reporters that being proscribed by the Home Office as a terrorist organisation was "incredibly infuriating" and that the group’s actions were intended to save lives in Palestine. The proscription followed a 2023 raid on RAF Brize Norton in which two members spray-painted a military jet, an incident the government says justified the designation.

Ammori and her legal team appeared before the Supreme Court last week to argue that the proscription violates Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They contend that Palestine Action’s activities constitute political protest, comparable to historic suffragette actions, rather than terrorism. Court observers noted that the judges appeared skeptical of the group’s arguments and that the lawyers were repeatedly interrupted, limiting their presentation time.

The government, represented by officials who previously served as home secretaries, maintains that the decision aligns with a Court of Appeal ruling and that broad discretion is required to enforce anti-terrorism legislation. It argues that the group’s tactics, including a manual encouraging disruptive actions against defence contractor Elbit Systems, cross the line into criminal conduct.

Ammori, who began direct-action campaigning while a student at Manchester University, cited personal family history in the West Bank and experiences on the Greek island of Lesbos as motivations for her activism. She emphasized that her aim is “Palestinians having equal rights to the Jewish people in that region,” not the expulsion of any population.

Support for Palestine Action has continued despite the proscription, with the group raising £300,000 in the first 48 hours after the ban. However, fundraising now risks breaching the Terrorism Act, and supporters fear legal repercussions for displaying the group’s name.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to set a precedent for the balance between public safety and civil liberties in the United Kingdom. Ammori indicated that, if the decision is unfavorable, she would pursue further legal remedies at the European Court of Human Rights.