An event in east London on Thursday brought together lawyers and activists to discuss a high-profile legal challenge against the UK Government’s proscription of Hamas as a terrorist organisation, framing it as a defence of free expression, Palestinian resistance rights, and resistance to the politicisation of counter-terrorism laws.
Organised by Riverway to the Sea, the gathering marked one year since the initial application for deproscription was submitted.
Barristers Franck Magennis and Daniel Grütters, working with solicitor Fahad Ansari, drafted and filed the application on behalf of Hamas in April 2025.
The detailed submission, supported by extensive expert reports, argued that the 2021 decision by then-Home Secretary Priti Patel to extend the ban to Hamas’s entire organisation (previously limited to its military wing) was unlawful, politically motivated and incompatible with human rights and international law obligations.
Speakers stressed that supporting the application does not equate to supporting Hamas, as one could totally oppose Hamas while still arguing for deproscription. Rather, they said, the case challenges the suppression of symbols of Palestinian identity and the logic of the ongoing Zionist genocide.
Several organisations and individuals present expressed interest in how they could submit their own applications under section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to deproscribe the group.
Case update
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
Daniel Grütters provided a procedural update. After the Home Secretary refused the application last year with minimal reasoning, the legal team filed an appeal.
Following delays and a half-baked strike-out attempt, a March hearing saw the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) order the Secretary of State to file detailed reasons for opposition and any evidence, including potentially secret material via a special advocate.
Grütters expressed bafflement at the reliance on closed evidence, noting the Commission chairman’s own surprise given the abundance of open material on Hamas.
The next key deadlines involve the government filing reasons and evidence in May, with the appellants responding in June.
Fahad Ansari said: “In the West, the British state would just love for us to carry on talking about ‘suffering Palestinians’ and Palestinian tears. What they hate is Palestinian resistance — what it represents, and how it defines Palestinians. What this case is essentially doing is this: if you really want to stop the genocide, if you really want to see justice in Palestine, then Palestinians have to be able to defend themselves.
“They have to be able to protect themselves and their families. And that can only happen when legislation that prohibits people from even discussing the concept of resistance in Palestine is done away with.”
Franck Magennis added: “The wider context is obviously genocide. The main thing I want to express tonight is that people in Britain — and especially elected politicians — need to do more to support this appeal as part of our broader opposition to the genocide. My main purpose tonight is to try and encourage people to escalate our opposition to what is happening.”
Context
The event positioned the case within broader historical and political contexts.
Moazzam Begg, former Guantanamo Bay detainee and senior director at CAGE International, drew parallels with anti-Nazi resistance in occupied Europe, arguing that Palestinians defending their homeland against occupation face inconsistent application of international norms.
He questioned why Palestinian groups are uniformly labeled terrorist while other resistance movements are not, citing the “rules-based international order” applying selectively.
Dr. Anas Altikriti, CEO of the Cordoba Foundation, warned that the proscription regime poses dangers beyond Hamas, potentially chilling speech for mainstream organisations and individuals.
He highlighted personal experiences of “debanking” and foreign lobby influence, urging resistance to what he called the weaponisation of laws against dissent and solidarity with Palestine. He linked the issue to wider threats to academic freedom and open debate.
A student facing charges under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for a 2023 campus speech supporting Palestinian resistance shared details of her case.
She described being doxed, raided and charged (with a trial scheduled for June), arguing that such laws — rooted in earlier legislation targeting Irish and Muslim communities — criminalise expressions of international law’s recognised right of occupied peoples to resist.
She called for public defence campaigns, street mobilisation and organisation, rejecting fear and insisting “resistance is not terrorism.”
Palestine Action
Speakers repeatedly connected the Hamas appeal to the successful judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action, where freedom of expression grounds contributed to the High Court finding the ban unlawful. They argued the Hamas case raises even stronger points on speech and proportionality.
The event concluded with calls for public support for the appeal, additional expert evidence, and involvement from lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Organisers urged attendees to reach out for ways to contribute, framing the challenge as a refutation of what they described as genocidal logic that equates Palestinian existence or symbols with threats.
The case continues, with procedural steps unfolding at the POAC. Critics, including political figures, have condemned the application as “sickening,” while supporters view it as a necessary test of democratic principles, free speech, and consistent application of law in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
