By Nick Moss
(Notes after reading the judgment in The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Huda Ammori, R (on the application of) Neutral Citation Number [2026] EWCA Civ 721
1. “A fair balance has been struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community”
(and by community is meant the “operations of a company pursuing a lawful business/ the Government’s strategic defence aims/ businesses and institutions/ including key national infrastructure and defence firms/
that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine/ the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)/ the “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise)”
2. “The Home Secretary had both the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make her decision” …“Judicial supervision … has to respect the institutional expertise and constitutional legitimacy underlying the judgment made by those authorities by according them a correspondingly wide margin of appreciation” “The Home Secretary is thus better placed than the court to adjudicate the balance of the various rights and interests engaged in the context of national security. Whilst the court remains the ultimate arbiter, the Home Secretary should be accorded a wide margin of appreciation (or respect) in making her judgment”
(such “democratic accountability” and “constitutional legitimacy” being derived from a vote share of 33.7%/ the lowest of any governing party on record/ at the least proportional general election in British history)
(“margin of appreciation” = this court will always defer/ GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST )
3. “It is a mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind. But there are conventions which are generally accepted by the lawbreakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other.”
( An assemblage of spectres/Blair Peach cracked skull/John Duddy chest shot (from the back) /Michael Kelly stomach shot/Hugh Gilmour chest shot (from the back) /William Nash chest shot/John Young face shot/Michael McDaid face shot/James Wray shot twice in the back/Kevin McElhinney shot in the back/ William McKinney shot in the back/Gerard McKinney shot in the chest/Gerald Donaghey shot in the stomach/Patrick Doherty shot in the back/ Barney McGuigan shot in back of skull/John Johnston shot in leg and left shoulder/ The dead now all disturbed/They want to know why these conventions which are generally accepted/ did not apply to them/ and the others like them/ who were not even law-breakers/ just exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others/ oh but these are qualified rights and can be subject to such restrictions/ as are prescribed by law / and are necessary in a democratic society/ in the interests of national security/ and perhaps this was simply a form of prescription/ applied by the law-enforcers/ or perhaps this is all anyway just bullshit mouthed by robed vermin whose independence of thought is accompanied by the title Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire…)
4. “(It is suggested that) those affected by Palestine Action’s activities could have been encouraged to apply for civil remedies, such as injunctions. It is suggested that individuals could have been designated under a sanctions regime… applications could have been made against individuals undertaking actions in the name of Palestine Action for asset-freezing orders and criminal behaviour orders…it is said that there could have been criminal prosecutions for offences outside the Terrorism Act 2000, which need not have relied upon proscription”
(and this in the end is the ground on which they always win/in getting us to trudge despondent down The Strand /to George Edmund Street’s monument to cant/standing cowed and awed in the Great Hall/horse-trading and pleading/bartering and short-selling/while we turn the rule of law/into a fetish/ and the political is reduced to a courtroom prance and prate/and the rights we presume inviolate/ are just gifts of state/not property of the people)
5. Palestine Action’s “Underground Manual” published in late 2023 advocates the disruption and destruction of and damage to its targets… “Action” is defined by section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 materially for present purposes, as involving “serious violence against a person” or “serious damage to property” … using weapons, including sledgehammers. It presented a very real risk of injury … to property. Its campaign was intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business.
(a sledgehammer is a weapon of serious violence/ defence firms/ the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)/ the “Five Eyes” allies and the UK defence enterprise/ are, apparently, not)
6. …proscription is not an end in itself but is the basis on which a number of other provisions apply, designed to prevent proscribed organisations from gathering support or financial aid, to counter their influence on susceptible individuals…
(shhh now/ best not to mention the 73,050 killed by Israel in Gaza/ the 1,088 killed by Israel in the West Bank and East Jerusalem/ since October 2023/ in case it provokes someone to Action over Palestine)
7. In addition to this open judgment, we have produced a closed judgment dealing with the closed materials that were relied upon by the Home Secretary.
Unitalicised text is taken from the text of the judgement.
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/721?query=AMMORI&court=ewca%2Fciv
Dedicated to Huda Ammori and all those others who have risked their liberty in pursuit of the rights and liberty of the Palestinian people.
