UK judge orders home secretary to explain opposition to Hamas de-proscription appeal
UK Judge Directs Home Secretary to Clarify Stance on Hamas De-Proscription Appeal
A British judge has instructed the UK home secretary to address her position on Hamas’s bid to have the group removed from the list of designated terrorist organisations. The request for clarity came during recent hearings, where the judge emphasized the need for prompt explanation of the government’s resistance to the appeal.
Hamas’s Legal Challenge and Timeline
Hamas, which remains on the UK’s proscribed list, has initiated an appeal before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), an independent body tasked with reviewing such cases. The initial move was made in April 2025 by Mousa Abu Marzouk, the head of Hamas’s foreign relations office, who enlisted British legal counsel to contest the 2021 designation by former Home Secretary Priti Patel.
Following the rejection of Hamas’s de-proscription request by Yvette Cooper, the former Home Secretary, the group submitted a second appeal to POAC in August 2025. During Thursday’s session, Justice Jonathan Swift, chair of POAC, urged government representatives to respond to the appeal and detail any reasons for the delay by 20 May.
Procedural Delays and Criticisms
Swift expressed frustration with the sluggish progress of the case, noting that over seven months had elapsed since Hamas filed its formal appeal. Nearly a year had passed since the first application was submitted, raising concerns about the efficiency of the process. The judge also highlighted the Home Office’s attempt to dismiss the appeal entirely, accusing the department of lacking transparency and failing to uphold its duty of candour.
The proceedings faced further disruption when the court could not assign a special advocate to handle secret evidence related to the case. This delay pushed back Marzouk’s scheduled appearance via video link, leaving his participation unresolved for the day.
Hamas’s Arguments and Legal Representation
In its initial application, Hamas contended that the proscription impedes its ability to facilitate peace talks and criminalises civilians in Gaza. The group also argued that the designation stifles broader political dialogue. Expert testimony from Oxford-based Israeli academic Avi Shlaim was included, advocating for a more balanced classification of Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
Legal representation for Hamas is handled by Franck Magennis, Daniel Grutters, and Fahad Ansari, all working pro bono due to restrictions on funding from proscribed groups. Magennis stated,
“It seems clear that the secretary of state’s strategy is to delay scrutiny of her decision-making for as long as possible.”
He attributed the delays to the government’s intent to avoid public examination of its rationale for maintaining the ban.
Under Section 4 of the Terrorism Act, the home secretary has 90 days to respond to an appeal. This provision allows organisations to challenge their designation, with the authority to add or remove groups from the proscribed list. Hamas’s case aims to scrutinise the government’s continued justification for listing the group as a terrorist entity.
