The decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist group was lawful as it was no “ordinary protest group”, the Court of Appeal has ruled. The Telegraph has more.

Five senior judges said Palestine Action was no “ordinary protest group” after siding with the Government over the proscription.

The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said the group had engaged in a criminal campaign of direct action against “key national infrastructure and defence firms”, including those providing support to Ukraine and Nato.

The proscription, which began on July 5th last year, made membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Judges at the High Court ruled in February that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful, following a legal challenge from the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori.

The Home Office appealed the ruling arguing that criminal sanctions for dealing with the group had become “insufficient” following an “escalation” in the scale and intensity of its actions.

On Monday, the five senior judges hearing the appeal, Baroness Carr, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Edis, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Whipple, ruled that the decision to ban the group was lawful.

Baroness Carr said Palestine Action’s “campaign was escalating and not being pursued with any restraint”.

She continued: “It is not a direct action civil disobedience protest group operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation which avoids the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury.

“The proscription decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s proscription policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful”.

In a statement following the ruling, Ammori said that she intended to take the case to the UK Supreme Court.

Worth reading in full.

The right decision, obviously – even if you disagree with the Government’s ban, we don’t want unelected judges routinely overruling the Government when it’s defending national security and protecting the public from organisations set on causing criminal damage.