The Weekly Round Up: Human Rights reports on Gaza, courts to hear challenges from Palestine Action co-founder and Good Law Project in November
4 August 2025
In the News
Two prominent human rights organisations in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), released reports contending Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by targeting Palestinians because of their identity.
The organisations have been monitoring events in the region for years, preceding the current conflict; however, the reports specifically focus on human rights and international law violations over the last two years. The 88-page report from B’Tselem outlines crimes of killing (elderly, women, children), starvation, the prison system, forced displacement and the depravation of healthcare and education. PHR’s report outlines the assault on the Palestinian health care system over the last two years, as well as the impact that the lack of medical care, the destruction of health infrastructure and killing of medical personnel is having.
These reports were released at the same time that Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), are reporting critically low food supplies in Gaza as concerns of a famine mount.
In the Courts
This week, the High Court determined that Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, may proceed with an unprecedented legal challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to ban the direct-action group under proscription laws. This is the first time a group or organisation has been permitted to challenge a proscription order at a trial. The three-day hearing will take place in November.
The claimant, Ammori, brought forward eight grounds for the High Court’s consideration; two were found to be reasonably arguable while the remaining six were rejected. First, the High Court was persuaded that it was seriously questionable and reasonably arguable that the order amounts to a disproportionate interference with Article 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly) rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Secondly, the High Court also found it was reasonably arguable that a duty for the Home Office to consult Palestine Action before issuing the order may have arisen. The remaining rejected grounds related to the proscription power being ‘used for an improper purpose’; the organisation’s nexus with terrorism; failure to gather sufficient information; the Home Secretary taking into account ‘irrelevant considerations’ to when deciding the order; lack of a proper proportionality assessment; and a breach of the public sector equality duty per s.149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Home Office unsuccessfully argued that the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) was a alternative forum for the challenge to be considered. The High Court disagreed with the assertion. To determine whether the POAC was a ‘conveniently and effectively available’ alternative, the High Court considered five relevant factors: (i) timing; (ii)nature of the detriment; (iii) criminal cases; (iv) forum and procedure; and (v) if judicial review would undermine the statutory regime. On factor (i), the High Court concluded that was a strong public interest for this challenge to be considered as soon as possible given its consequences. A judicial review provides a trial as soon as the autumn, whereas a POAC hearing could not take place until the middle of 2026. With respect to factor (ii) the Court was concerned that a delay in review would significantly impede freedom of political speech and protest, particularly related to the Palestinian cause. Moreover, the Court was concerned that individuals arrested under the proscription order and tried criminally (iii) would use the validity of the order as a defence. The Court held that the POAC would not be the appropriate forum (iv) where ‘human rights damages’ flow from ‘the initial decision to proscribe’ and these claims ‘should be brought in judicial review proceedings’. Lastly, judicial review would have a limited impact on the statutory scheme (v) of de-proscription in the future.
An application to suspect the effect of the order pending the judicial review was denied by the High Court, as well as an application from the Home Office to appeal the judge’s decision regarding a POAC hearing.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, Professor Ben Saul, was granted permission to intervene in this case, with evidence and submissions on behalf of the Rapporteur filed.
The High Court will also hear a challenge from the Good Law Project regarding the Equality and Human Right’s Commission interim guidance related to the UK Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland judgement (April 2025). The hearing will take place over two days in November.
The Supreme Court’s ruling determined that definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 is biological sex. In May 2025, the EHRC opened a six-week consultation process to inform guidance around the ruling; the consultation was subsequently extended to August 18th after criticism from communities and organisations.
The Good Law Project argued that the interim guidance goes beyond the scope of what the judgement requires and has not provided clarity but rather anxiety and uncertainty for the trans community and other affected individuals. The Project will argue that it was wrong for the EHRC to issue guidance for employers to only provide gendered toilets based on biological sex and to ignore ways that inclusive facilities can be provided for trans men and women.
The Project’s legal case can be read here.
