"Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said the high court's decision was wrong because there was already a mechanism to challenge proscription by appealing to the home secretary and then the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Poac). He said in written submissions that there was nothing exceptional about the respondent's [Ammori's] case that justifies allowing her to avoid the statutory scheme."
"But Raza Husain KC, representing Ammori, argued that the case was unique. The home secretary has 90 days to respond to a challenge to proscription under the Terrorism Act before the Poac process can begin. Husain said that Mr Justice Chamberlain, sitting at the high court, was right to raise concerns that Poac would not hear the case until the middle of next year, whereas a judicial review could take place in the autumn. It has been scheduled for 25 to 27 November."
"In seeking a judicial review, Husain said his client relied on the unique nature of the case: the proscription of a protest group with widespread popular support; and the severe detriments that would flow from the Poac route on these facts, including: the ongoing and irremediable chilling of speech and assembly in the interim; the delayed determination of a matter relevant to ongoing criminal cases;"
The Home Office has asked the court of appeal to overturn a high court decision granting Huda Ammori a judicial review of Palestine Action's proscription, arguing that the statutory route of appeal to the home secretary and then the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Poac) is adequate. Ammori's legal team contends the case is unique because proscription targets a protest group with widespread popular support and because the Poac route would cause severe interim harms, including a chilling of speech and assembly, delayed resolution of matters affecting ongoing criminal prosecutions, and no remedy for hundreds already arrested.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]