The case is Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The court's own listing identified the hearing as judgment in the Home Secretary's appeal from the High Court decision of 13 February 2026, and the final open judgment said Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action's co-founders, had challenged the decision to add the group to Schedule 2 of the 2000 Act.
The practical result is immediate: Palestine Action remains a proscribed organisation. The Guardian reported that membership of, or support for, the group became an offence after the order came into effect on 5 July 2025, with more than 700 pending cases in England and Wales under the Terrorism Act. The Court of Appeal judgment itself recorded that more than 700 cases were pending in the criminal courts, with many more at the pre-charge stage.
Table: Key procedural dates in Ammori v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Date | Step | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 20 June 2025 | Home Secretary confirmed the decision to proscribe Palestine Action | Court of Appeal judgment |
| 23 June 2025 | Decision announced to Parliament | Court of Appeal judgment |
| 5 July 2025 | Proscription order came into effect | Court of Appeal judgment |
| 13 February 2026 | Divisional Court quashed the proscription decision on two grounds | Court of Appeal press summary |
| 15 June 2026 | Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary's appeal | Court of Appeal judgment |
Source: Court of Appeal judgment and press summary, 2026.
The appeal turned on two errors the Court of Appeal said the Divisional Court had made. First, the court held that the Home Secretary had not breached her own proscription policy by taking account of the operational benefits of proscription. The press summary said the policy did not limit the factors available to the Home Secretary in that way.
Second, the Court of Appeal redid the proportionality assessment under the Bank Mellat test, a four-stage approach courts use when deciding whether an interference with rights is justified. The court accepted that Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting free expression and assembly, were engaged. But it held that the Home Secretary had a wide margin of appreciation in a national-security setting, and that the future risks assessed by the executive weighed heavily in the balance.
That is the legal centre of the ruling. The court did not say protest rights were irrelevant, nor did it accept the Home Secretary's broader argument that Article 17 of the Convention put any support for Palestine Action outside Articles 10 and 11. It instead found that the interference with individual rights was proportionate once national security, protection of others and the Home Secretary's institutional role were weighed together.