Overview
- A judicial review brought by co-founder Huda Ammori opened in London before Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, with hearings set to conclude on December 2 and a written ruling to follow.
- Ammori’s lawyers argue the proscription is a misuse of anti-terror law against a civil disobedience group that does not advocate violence, comparing it to past direct-action movements such as the suffragettes.
- The Home Office defends the ban as a response to an escalating campaign including a June break-in at RAF Brize Norton that prosecutors say caused about £7 million in damage, plus intimidation and alleged violence at protests.
- At least 2,300 people have been arrested since July for displaying support, with more than 200 charged, and a successful challenge could affect prosecutions brought under the proscription.
- UN human rights chief Volker Türk and the Council of Europe have criticized the measure as disproportionate, and court filings report that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Donald Trump discussed the group in March before the ban.