Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Judge Chamberlain refusing interim relief. The interim relief sought aimed to prevent an order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department adding "Palestine Action" to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000 from taking immediate effect.
Palestine Action is a group formed approximately five years ago, engaged in direct actions against companies and institutions in the United Kingdom which it alleges are involved in violations of international law against Palestinians. Members or supporters of Palestine Action were accused of breaking into a Royal Air Force base and damaging military aircraft in June 2025. Following this incident, the Secretary of State decided to proscribe Palestine Action.
The proscription order was laid before and approved by Parliament on 2 and 3 July 2025 and was made on 4 July 2025, coming into force the following day. The claimant, a member and founder of Palestine Action, commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the decision to proscribe the organisation. Alongside the claim, the claimant sought interim relief to prevent the order from taking effect pending the judicial review outcome.
The judge refused the interim relief application and permission to appeal. The claimant renewed the application for permission to appeal before this court, which was heard on an urgent out-of-hours basis.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
- Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if interim relief were refused.
- Whether the balance of convenience favored granting or refusing interim relief, particularly considering national security interests and the rights of the claimant under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- Whether the judge erred in law or in fact in refusing interim relief and denying permission to appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 |
Principles governing the grant of interim relief: serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, balance of convenience. |
Used to frame the test for granting interim injunctions in public law cases. |
| R (Public and Commercial Services Union and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 840 ("PCSU") |
Scope of appellate review in judicial review interim relief cases and principles for public law interim relief. |
Guided the court’s approach to appellate review and the balance of convenience in public law cases. |
| R (Governing Body of X) v Officer for Standards in Education [2020] EWCA Civ 594 |
Reluctance to grant interim relief absent a strong prima facie case of unlawfulness. |
Supported the approach to assessing serious issue to be tried. |
| AG v BBC [2022] EWGC 826; [2022] 4 WLR 74 |
Respect for executive judgment in national security matters when assessing risk and weight. |
Applied to emphasize deference to Secretary of State’s national security assessment. |
| R (on the application of FTDI Holding Ltd) v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2025] EWHC 241 (Admin) |
Summary of the approach to balance of convenience where national security is engaged. |
Reinforced the principle that national security interests often outweigh other considerations. |
| Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova (2007) 45 EHRR 13 |
Considerations relating to timing and proportionality of restrictions affecting Convention rights. |
Referenced in argument but distinguished on facts; no error found in judge’s approach. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reiterating the limited role of the judiciary in matters of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, emphasizing that the merits of the Secretary of State's decision are not for the court to determine. The court’s role is to apply the law and review whether the lower court’s decision was legally correct or reasonably open.
The statutory framework defines proscription powers strictly and imposes criminal sanctions for membership or support of proscribed organisations. The Secretary of State’s decision was supported by a written statement citing increased and aggressive criminal actions by the organisation, which justified proscription on national security grounds.
The judge below found that there was at least one serious issue to be tried concerning proportionality under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. However, the balance of convenience favored refusal of interim relief. The judge reasoned that the harm caused by immediate enforcement of the order (including criminal liability for members) was largely the result of deliberate non-compliance and thus deserved limited weight.
The judge also noted that peaceful protest and lawful expression remained lawful despite proscription. The court gave significant weight to the public interest in national security, particularly given the parliamentary approval of the order and the urgency following recent events.
The appellant’s grounds of appeal challenged the judge’s approach to the balance of convenience, national security evidence, and the availability of alternative remedies. The court found these challenges unpersuasive, affirming that the judge properly considered the relevant factors, including the rights under the ECHR and the procedural context.
The court emphasized deference to executive judgment in national security and found no error in the judge’s refusal of interim relief or denial of permission to appeal.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED PERMISSION TO APPEAL, concluding that there was no real prospect of success or other compelling reason to hear the appeal.
The decision means that the proscription order adding Palestine Action to the list of proscribed organisations will take effect as scheduled. No new precedent was established, and the ruling affirms the high threshold for interim relief in national security-related judicial review cases and the limited scope of appellate review in such matters.