Palestine Action in court

On Friday, in R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin), three judges in the Administrative Division of the High Court, with Dame Victoria Sharp P presiding, declared unanimously that the proscription of Palestine Action – under which many people protesting out of religious conviction, including clergy of various denominaitions, have been arrested and charged – had resulted in a very significant interference with their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and was therefore discriminatory.

The claim succeeded on two grounds (the other grounds failed):

• Ground 2: that the decision to seek proscription was contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 because it amounted to an unjustified interference with Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association and peaceful assembly) ECHR and further, amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14; and
• Ground 6: that the decision to seek the Order proscribing Palestine Action was made by the Home Secretary in breach of her own policy on when she would exercise her discretion to seek an order proscribing an organisation.

The Court agreed that Palestine Action had organised and undertaken actions that amounted to terrorism under in the Terrorism Act 2000:

“At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act” [138].

Nevertheless, it held that the nature and scale of the group’s activities had

“not yet reached the level, scale and persistence that would justify the application of the criminal law measures that are the consequence of proscription, and the very significant interference with Convention rights consequent on those measures” [140],

In spite of finding for the claimant, however, the Court did not lift the ban, which will remain in force while the Government appeals.

Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at Cambridge, comments on the judgment in Public Law for Everyone, here. David Allen Green comments in The Empty City, here.

Places of Worship Renewal Fund: further details

Details of the new Places of Worship Renewal Fund continue to emerge. In answer to two written questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by Simon Hoare (North Dorset, Con), Ian Murray, Minister of State at DCMS said this:

“The Places of Worship Renewal Fund is a capital fund, meaning it will award grants for projects to cover capital works, rather than just the VAT element. Further details on the Places of Worship Renewal Fund specific criteria, application process and funding allocation will be announced in due course” [here].

“The Listed Places of Worship Scheme was run on a first come first served basis. The new Places of Worship Scheme will instead target funding at areas of the most need, and Places of Worship will go through a proportionate application process. We are currently designing the criteria with experts from the sector, and have not made an estimate of numbers eligible, which will partly depend on the size of grants applied for. The fund will deliver £92 million over 4 years” [here].

In answer to a written question from Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire, Lib Dem), he said that the Department’s evaluation of the LPWG Scheme “showed that while the current Scheme had many benefits, 80% of respondents said that they would still have carried out the work without the rebate. As we look towards a new fiscal period and the evolving needs of our community, it is essential that government support is deployed to the areas where it can have the greatest impact and where it is needed most” [here].

Further information came to light during the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s oral evidence session on protecting built heritage with the DCMS Minister of State, Baroness Twycross, in which she made it clear that the new Fund will be more focused than the Scheme it replaces:

“The key difference is that it is going to be targeted. The VAT model we previously used was a pretty blunt tool. The new fund, which will have £90 million over the next four years, will be targeted at areas of double disadvantage … We are working through the criteria and how that will work in practice, because I am also clear that a postcode is not necessarily reflective of where the place of worship is undertaking its community work. So we are looking at how it will support community cohesion as well” [Q. 291]

It remains to be seen how DCMS interprets “areas of double disadvantage”.

Ecclesiastical Law Society

Booking is now open for the Ecclesiastical Law Society’s Day Conference, at 10 am on Saturday 13 June at St Peter’s, Eaton Square. The theme of the conference (which will include the AGM) is Burial Law and Churchyards: fit for the future?  

The ticket price includes all refreshments and lunch. Further details here.

Quick links

• Adina Portaru, Oxford Human Rights Hub: Neutrality is not Amnesia: Religious Symbols and the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Helena van Coller, International Journal for Religious Freedom: Church bells, chimes and calls to prayer: A religious blessing or noise nuisance?: on the law of nuisance in South Africa. (Which, incidentally, reminds Frank that well-struck rounds or call-changes are less likely to annoy the neighbours than badly-rung Stedman Triples.)