The government loses a bid to block an appeal on the protection of the Palestinian Authority

The government has failed in its bid to prevent a challenge to its decision to ban Palestinian activity under terrorism laws.

In a landmark ruling, the appeals court outlined a way to review the ban before a high court judge next month.

The founder of the Palestinian movement, HUDA AMMORI, had won approval earlier this year due to the review of the home secretary.

The Home Office said it would consider the implications of the decision, but said the Palestinian Authority remained a charter party and those who support them “will face the full force of the law”.

The ban, which came into force on 5 July, makes membership of, or support for, a specific action group a criminal offence.

More than 2,100 people have been arrested for demonstrations since the operation began.

At those protests, they held signs reading “I oppose the rigging of elections, I support Palestinian action”.

Another 170 protesters face charges of showing support for the group, which can lead to six months in prison.

The Ministers tried to stop the judicial action from taking place, arguing that the Parliament had put in place a specific procedure to prevent orders.

Under terrorism laws, any group banned by Ministers can ask to be “deferred” through a complex internal review by the home office. That process can take months to complete.

If the Ministers decide that the ban should remain in force, the order can be reviewed by the judges of the secret special court, the organizations that submit complaints to the Commission (PoAC).

Basically, this means that any banned group, but believes it can show that it is not involved in terrorism, has been cooperating for a year or more fighting its crime.

Ms Ammori’s lawyers said the unusual circumstances of the group’s ban – and the level of public support for the specific action group – meant the process was unfair and barred from court.

They said Parliament had never clearly established a fast-track process to quickly challenge the ban, although it had created a more flexible appeals process.

Baroness Sue Carr Carr, The Lady Hea Justice, said that Ms. Ammori could have brought a challenge to the original decision to consolidate the Palestinian act, rather than waiting for the outcome of the long pooc process.

“The request for mitigation, and the right to appeal the poac, is not intended to be a way to challenge the original decision,” he said in his ruling on Friday morning.

He said the judicial review would be “a faster way to challenge the Palestinian action order, than to apply for a reduction”.

“The judicial review will enable the Supreme Court to give an authoritative judgment on whether it is permissible to fail to implement the Palestinian act.

“Judgment may be subject to criminal courts hearing charges against any individual in connection with their support for the Palestinian cause.”

A spokesperson for the home office said that the court was commenting on the appeal decision and would now carefully consider what was said.

“Palestinian action has led to an escalating campaign. This has involved criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, and intimidation,” he said.

“The Palestinian Authority remains a documented group and those who support them will face the full force of the law.

“Everyone should remember: Supporting Palestine and supporting an organized terrorist group are not the same thing.”

But Ms Ammori said the government’s attempt to avoid judicial review had ‘backfired sharply’ because the appeals court had returned and could challenge further bans.

“We are now heading for a judicial review in November with strict legal action,” the statement said.

“Arresting peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade is a dangerous misuse of resources.”

Ms Ammori also won a second appeal related to expanding her case in November. This means he is allowed to present extensive reasons to the High Court as to why he says the ban is illegal.