About this case

Case name

Craig Murray for judicial review of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Case reference number

P1017/25

Date of hearing

Monday 12 January 2026

Time of hearing

9:30 until conclusion

Judge

Lord Young

Agents and Counsel

For the Petitioner (Craig Murray)

• Agents: Halliday Campbell WS
• Counsel: Joanna Cherry KC and David Blair

For the Respondent (Baroness Smith of Cluny KC, Advocate General for Scotland)

• Agents: Office of the Advocate General
• Counsel: Mark Lindsay KC 

Case description

On 5 July 2025 the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 came into force (“the 2025 Order”).

The 2025 Order added an organisation named Palestine Action to the list of Proscribed Organisations under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.  Sections 11 and 12 of the 2000 Act make membership of, or to invite support for, a proscribed organisation a criminal offence.  The effect of the 2025 Order was, therefore, to make it an offence to belong to or invite support for Palestine Action.

The petitioner seeks judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision to make the 2025 Order.  Specifically, he asks the court to find and declare that the 2025 Order was ultra vires – i.e. not within the Home Secretary’s power – and reduce (quash) the 2025 Order.

The petitioner submits three grounds for the Order to be quashed. First, that the 2025 Order was published in circumstances which were procedurally unfair, in that proscription is a draconian power which ought not to be exercised without prior consultation with those affected.  Second, the 2025 Order disproportionately interferes with the petitioner’s freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Third, the 2025 Order disproportionately interferes with the petitioner’s right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the ECHR.

Section 27B of the Court of Session Act 1988 provides that a petition for judicial review requires permission to proceed.  In particular, section 27B(2) requires the petitioner to demonstrate i) sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the petition and ii) a real prospect of success.

The respondent asks the court to refuse permission to proceed, arguing that the petitioner does not have standing in that he is not directly affected by the 2025 Order.  He does not claim to be a member of Palestine Action, is not prevented from expressing his views about Palestine, and is not known to be under threat of prosecution.  Furthermore, the respondent argues the petition is unnecessary given that a challenge to the 2025 Order is already underway in England and Wales (R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311) and the petition merely duplicates the grounds of challenge in the English & Welsh proceedings.  The respondent argues that there was no duty on the Secretary of State to consult prior to introducing the 2025 Order and insofar as the 2025 Order infringes upon ECHR rights it does so only to an extent prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society.

The petition calls before Lord Young on Monday 12 January 2026 at 9:30am for a hearing on whether permission to proceed should be granted.