Palestine Action has lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge to temporarily stop it being banned as a terror group, less than two hours before it was due to come into force.
Earlier on Friday Huda Ammori, the groupâs co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The move is due to come into force at midnight after judge Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the bid for a temporary block.
Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, judges refused to grant the temporary block.
The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: âThe judge was entitled to take the view that the harm identified⌠would be the product of an individualâs decision not to comply with the order.â
She added that there was âno real prospect of a successful appealâ.
Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a âpoint of general public importanceâ to allow a Supreme Court bid.
Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis, added: âYou are not going to get to the Supreme Court before midnight.â
The judge said that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid.
In their 11-page written judgment, the judges said: âThe role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law.
âThe merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the courtâŚSimilarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.â
In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: âI have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.â
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block.
She said: âThe balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.â
She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain âfailed properly to considerâ that banning the group âwould cause irreparable harmâ.
Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: âThere was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.â
She continued that the ban would mean âa vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarityâ.
Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told appeal judges that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a âdetailed and careful judgmentâ which was âall the more impressive given the time constraintsâ.
He added that the judge âwas entitled to reach the conclusion that he didâ.
The barrister said: âThe judge conducted a very careful analysis of all the matters he relied upon.â
Mr Watson also said that the judge was âaliveâ to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential âchilling effectâ on free speech.
âThere was no error by the judge in concluding that there was a serious question to be tried while at the same time acknowledging that he couldnât, on the material in front of him, say that it had strong prospects of success,â he added.
