Lawyers for Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori told the UK Supreme Court that the group’s proscription had created a “crisis in confidence” in anti-terrorism laws and led to unprecedented civil disobedience. Ammori is challenging the government’s decision to ban the group under terrorism legislation, a question the court has not previously considered in relation to the rights to freedom of speech and protest.

The hearing took place on Wednesday, when 27 protesters were arrested outside the court, according to the Metropolitan Police. Ammori’s lawyers said thousands of people, including elderly demonstrators and veterans of other protest movements, had been arrested for displaying signs in support of Palestine Action. Home Office figures reported by the BBC show more than 4,000 arrests at such protests. Prosecutors have authorised 1,200 charges, while trials are on hold pending the outcome of the case.

Representing Ammori, Henry Blaxland KC argued that the ban had publicised the group rather than discrediting it, and called the decision disproportionate and unnecessary. Her legal team acknowledged that Palestine Action was not an ordinary, peaceful protest group. Its members had occupied or vandalised businesses linked to Israel’s military, they said, but argued that only three of 385 incidents assessed by the Home Secretary amounted to offences under the Terrorism Act.

Raza Husain KC told the justices to distinguish allegations of criminal conduct from the question of whether proscribing the organisation was proportionate. He said less than one per cent of the group’s actions over five years had been assessed as falling within the broad definition of terrorism. The legislation includes serious property damage carried out for a cause; criminal courts have described at least two break-ins at defence companies as causing millions of pounds in damage.

The court also heard opposing arguments from Jewish communal groups. Their lawyer, Adam Wagner KC, described Palestine Action as a violent organisation whose targets had expanded from defence company Elbit to people and institutions it considered Zionist. He argued that a campaign against institutions viewed as connected to Israel could threaten the mainstream Jewish community. Free-speech campaigners, by contrast, have argued that the ban interferes with the right to protest.

The hearing was due to continue on Thursday, with the Supreme Court’s judgment expected at a later date.

Sources: BBC News UK.