“That’s why more people, I think, aren’t here. People would agree at least with the sign that I’m holding up, but people aren’t here because they’re frightened, and I’m frightened. And I think we’re in a situation where people are frightened of protesting, expressing their democratically enshrined – supposedly – convictions; then we’re in a bad place as a society.”
Ms Ammori’s legal battle has wound through multiple courts. In February, the High Court deemed the ban “disproportionate” and unlawful, but the Court of Appeal reversed that finding in June, ruling the proscription was lawful.
Her barrister, Raza Husain KC, argued before the justices that Palestine Action’s aims were “aligned with, rather than abhorrent to liberal democratic values.” He noted that of 385 actions carried out by the group over five years, the Home Secretary’s own advisers assessed just three, less than one per cent, as meeting the statutory definition of terrorism, and solely on the basis of “serious damage to property.”
Representing the Home Office, Sir James Eadie KC countered that serious property damage could constitute terrorism without any violence against individuals. He maintained that the ban does not restrict broader expressions of support for the Palestinian cause, only direct support for Palestine Action itself.