Ammori, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311 (17 October 2025)

Ammori, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311 (17 October 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory process for deproscription under sections 4 and 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with a right of appeal to POAC, is not an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review of an initial proscription order. The statutory scheme is designed to address the continued proscription of an organisation, not to remedy the consequences of an unlawful initial proscription. Judicial review remains available to challenge the lawfulness of the initial proscription order, particularly where criminal liability and convictions may result from an unlawful order. The judge was correct to allow judicial review to proceed in these circumstances.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1311
Parties
Respondent/cross Appellant: Huda Ammori; Appellant/cross Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Judicial review permitted to proceed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Alternative Remedies, Proscription of Organisations, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Statutory Interpretation, Criminal Convictions, Human Rights Act 1998, Terrorism Act 2000
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Judicial Review Alternative Remedies Proscription of Organisations Freedom of Expression +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Huda Ammori

Respondent/cross Appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Appellant/cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (administrative Law) / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application to deproscribe under section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with a right of appeal to POAC, is an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review of an initial proscription order.
  2. 2 Whether Ms Ammori was required to apply for permission to appeal within 7 days under CPR 52.8 and, if so, whether time should be extended.
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal or to apply for judicial review should be granted on grounds 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the statutory process for deproscription under sections 4 and 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with a right of appeal to POAC, is not an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review of an initial proscription order. The statutory scheme is designed to address the continued proscription of an organisation, not to remedy the consequences of an unlawful initial proscription. Judicial review remains available to challenge the lawfulness of the initial proscription order, particularly where criminal liability and convictions may result from an unlawful order. The judge was correct to allow judicial review to proceed in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Judicial review permitted to proceed.

Orders

  • The Secretary of State's appeal is dismissed.
  • Judicial review of the proscription order is permitted to proceed on grounds 2 and 8.