EMBARGOED
An independent legal application has been submitted by CAGE International under Section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to remove Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (commonly referred to as Hamas) from the UK’s list of proscribed organisations.
The application evidences the onerous impact that proscription has on communities and individuals in the UK.
The application is not on behalf of Hamas.
This pack contains briefing on the following issues:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Dates, details and procedures:……………………………………………………………………………………2
Why Deproscription:…………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Key Legal Arguments:………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
Key Issues:……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Impact……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Conclusion:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Upon request…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
Contact details:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Introduction:
CAGE International has filed a legal application with the UK Home Secretary to remove Hamas from the country’s list of proscribed organisations.
The case challenges the necessity and proportionality of the proscription on the grounds that it violates freedom of expression (Article 10) ) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and is being enforced in a discriminatory manner (Article 14).
The submission focuses on the systemic suppression of political speech, particularly within Britain’s Muslim communities. It highlights the weaponisation of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalises expressions of support for proscribed organisations — including social media posts, public speech or attendance at meetings.
Through anonymised case studies, the application details how school children, university students, teachers, health workers, academics and activists have been targeted and often sanctioned. This is for expressing solidarity with Palestine or calling out the current genocide in Gaza in which over 50 000 people have been killed by Israel since 2023.
The effect has had a chilling effect on open debate, curtailed political expression, victimised dissenting views and prevented campaigning against the occupation and genocide.
Dates, details and procedures:
When was the CAGE application filed: 2nd June 2025
What is expected to happen: The current Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has 90 days to respond. If the Home Secretary agrees with CAGE’s application, Hamas will be deproscribed, and if not, a right to appeal exists via the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission (POAC).
What is proscription: Proscription in the UK refers to the government’s power to ban organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. This makes it a criminal offence for individuals in the UK to belong to, support, or promote a proscribed organisation. Hamas was proscribed in its entirety in 2021 by former Home Secretary, Priti Patel.
Who else has filed an application: Riverway Law filed a deproscription application in April 2025 on behalf of Hamas. CAGE provided a brief expert submission to that application. The application filed in June 2025 by CAGE International however, is separate.
What standing does CAGE International have to make this application? Section 4 of The Terrorism Act 2000 allows for any person who is affected by an organisation’s proscription to apply to the Secretary of State to remove that organisation from the list of proscribed organisations. CAGE International is submitting its application in its capacity as an advocacy group supporting individuals impacted by the proscription and wider counter
terrorism policies.
Why Deproscription:
● This is a legal challenge rooted in principle, not politics.
CAGE’s application is about upholding fundamental rights — freedom of expression and protection from discrimination — which are the cornerstones of any free society.
● Freedom of expression is under siege in the UK when it comes to Palestine.
Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation, has been used to silence dissent, prevent debate and criminalise people — not for violence, but for speech.
● Section 12 prosecutions are being applied disproportionately and discriminatorily.
British Muslims are being targeted in an unjust, politically charged manner, contrary to Article 14 of the ECHR.
● Careers, lives, and communities are being destroyed.
The human cost is clear. The proscription is enabling unjust consequences: teachers suspended, doctors struck off, students expelled, and charities paralysed, all without due process, and often without any formal conviction.
● Deproscription is not about endorsement — it’s about legal proportionality and basic justice.
Many governments and international bodies engage with Hamas in recognition of its political and governance role in Gaza. The UK remains isolated, applying an outdated and blanket ban with grave domestic consequences.
● This case is a litmus test for civil liberties in Britain today.
If speech about international resistance, human rights, or Palestinian freedom is silenced by fear, then we no longer have a functioning free speech framework.
Key Legal Arguments:
● Proscription powers have been used to violate the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Limitations imposed through proscription laws in the UK are disproportionate – resulting in an erosion of civil liberties under the guise of counter-terrorism.
● The proscription powers are applied in a discriminatory manner, contrary to Article 14 of the EHRC, which states, ”The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” The CAGE application documents numerous cases in which members of British Muslim communities in particular have been predominantly targeted.
● Punitive measures stemming from the proscription also raise serious concerns about infringements under Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR which safeguard freedom of thought, belief, conscience and expression.
● Enabling the executive to abuse broad unrestricted powers, especially in immigration cases, under vague “not conducive for public good” notions, is based on subjective interpretation that is open to abuse.
Key Issues:
● A systematic and troubling curtailment of the right to freedom of expression.
● Conflating legitimate political expression with unlawful support for terrorism.
● Heightened scrutiny and punitive safeguarding responses towards young children expressing support for Palestine.
● Expressions of solidarity with Palestine are increasingly misrepresented as support for terrorism, enabled by broad legal frameworks like the Terrorism Act 2000 and enforced through various institutions.
● Disciplinary and legal measures lack transparency, proportionality, and due process, raising serious concerns under Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR, which safeguard freedom of thought, belief, conscience and expression.
● “Support” for a proscribed organisation, under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, has led to the penalisation of expressions that are, at most, symbolic acts of political solidarity or critical engagement with foreign policy.
● The reliance on vague notions of conduct “not conducive to the public good” has enabled the executive to exercise disproportionate power without sufficient judicial oversight, thereby undermining the procedural safeguards embedded within both domestic common law traditions and international human rights law.
Impact
The impact of the proscription limitations have been severe. It has resulted in the disruption of lives and livelihoods and has created a climate of fear and a resultant suppression of open debate and free expression.
The CAGE application lists 24 cases in which its clients were impacted by proscription laws in the following 6 sectors:
a) University disciplinary actions
● Several cases of university students and that of a lecturer are documented, in which individuals were investigated or sanctioned. Their ‘offences’, amongst others, include resharing publicly available media articles and headlines.
Individuals have been impacted by the possibility of expulsion or their visas being revoked, lengthy disciplinary procedures, and negative media attention.
b) Employment disciplinary actions
● Individuals in the health and education sectors particularly were targeted for expressing pro-Palestinian views on social media. The targeting was often on the basis of external complaints without thorough internal investigation. The impact has included loss of employment, suspension and lasting reputational damage.
c) Arrests and criminal investigations
● Activists, academics and professionals have been subject to house raids, confiscation of property, Schedule 7 stops and arrests under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and onerous bail conditions. This has resulted in
extensive disruption to their personal and professional lives.
d) Immigration and deportation proceedings
Cases documented show a pattern in which individuals expressing support for the Palestinian right to resistance of occupation faced immigration sanctions including attempts to revoke their visas and threats of deportations, with
significant impact on their families and job security.
e) Prevent referrals across educational and professional settings
● School pupils between the ages of 8 and 11 years and working professionals have been referred, or threatened with referral, to Prevent for expressing solidarity with Palestine. The cases demonstrate the often indiscriminate and
expansive application of the Prevent Strategy.
f) Child safeguarding cases within schools
● Primary and secondary school pupils have faced scrutiny and punitive safeguarding. Expressions of solidarity with Palestine were routinely treated as indicators of extremist sympathies. This reactionary safeguarding culture
has caused emotional trauma, fostered distrust in educational institutions and restricted freedom of expression among children
Conclusion:
Current counter-terrorism and proscription laws are applied in ways that conflate political expression with support for terrorism, thereby eroding foundational due process principles.
The systematic suppression of pro-Palestinian speech does not merely harm the individuals and communities targeted; it threatens the broader principles of open debate and political freedom upon which a free society must be based.
Urgent reforms are therefore necessary to entrench human rights protections within counter-terrorism policy and practice. The right to freedom of expression — especially political expression — must be robustly protected. The disproportionate and discriminatory application of proscription laws must be challenged.
For the reasons stated above, CAGE International’s application calls on the SSHD to reverse the formerHome Secretary, Priti Patel’s decision to proscribe Hamas.
Upon request
We can offer access to: – – –
An embargoed copy of our application.
Arrange for interviews with CAGE spokespeople for podcast, broadcast, print or radio interviews.
Interviews, quotes with individuals impacted by proscription powers.
Contact details:
To discuss interviews and other possibilities for coverage of the report, please contact us at:
Email: press@cage.ngo or anas@cage.ngo
Phone: +44 20 7377 6700 or +44 7521127952
