Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Palestine Action ban appeal enters closed proceedings at UK Supreme Court
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori’s appeal against the group’s ban has moved into closed proceedings at the UK Supreme Court, after both sides completed their public arguments. Five judges will now hear secret government evidence, which Ammori’s legal team cannot access; a security-cleared special advocate will represent her interests.
The government argued that the group’s secretive property damage, including actions against Israeli arms company Elbit Systems, met the legal definition of terrorism and said judges should defer to Parliament’s decision. Ammori’s lawyer rejected claims that the group targeted Jewish businesses or threatened democracy, and argued the ban had seriously interfered with political speech, association and assembly. The ban took effect in February 2025, and police have arrested more than 4,000 people under the Terrorism Act for displaying support for the group; the court will issue its judgment later.
In short
- The Supreme Court appeal has entered closed proceedings.
- Judges will consider secret government evidence.
- Police have arrested more than 4,000 people over support placards.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The government’s strongest case is that deliberate, covert property damage can create serious risks and may meet the statutory definition of terrorism, even when presented as political protest. Where Parliament has judged a group’s conduct to cross that threshold, courts should give due weight to that assessment and to any security evidence that cannot safely be made public.
The case against
Ammori’s strongest case is that damaging property, however unlawful, does not by itself justify classifying a protest group as a terrorist organisation, especially where the ban sharply restricts political speech, association and assembly. She argues that the measure is disproportionate, that claims of threats to Jewish businesses or democracy are disputed, and that secret evidence makes it harder for her to challenge the government’s case fairly.