Financial Times corrects judges named in Palestine Action proscription challenge

The Financial Times has amended its reporting on the High Court legal challenge to the UK government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, correcting an error over the judges assigned to hear the case.

An article published on November 24 wrongly stated that Mr Justice Chamberlain would sit on the three-judge panel reviewing the proscription. The FT has now clarified that the case will instead be heard by Dame Victoria Sharp, Mrs Justice Steyn and Mr Justice Swift.

On its face, the correction concerns a single line of attribution in a detailed piece examining how the ban on Palestine Action has evolved into a test case over the limits of protest and free speech. But in a legal dispute of this sensitivity, judicial accuracy is not incidental. The identity of the judges matters because it informs expectations about procedure, precedent and the seriousness with which the court is likely to approach the government’s use of counterterrorism powers.

The original article explored the political and legal fallout from the Home Office’s decision to add Palestine Action to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations, a move that criminalises membership or public support and carries sentences of up to 14 years. It set out the competing arguments in the judicial review brought by the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, and the government’s insistence that the organisation’s activities meet the statutory threshold for terrorism under UK law.

That analysis remains intact. What has changed is the factual scaffolding around the case. High-profile judicial reviews are shaped not only by the arguments advanced but by the composition of the bench. Dame Victoria Sharp, the current President of the King’s Bench Division, alongside Mrs Justice Steyn and Mr Justice Swift, signals a panel with deep experience in public law and national security matters.

The FT’s correction follows a familiar pattern in complex legal reporting. Errors that do not alter the thrust of an argument can still undermine reader confidence, particularly when coverage touches on terrorism legislation, civil liberties and the courts’ relationship with the executive. Precision in naming judges is a basic requirement of court reporting, not a peripheral detail.

By updating the article to reflect the correct panel, the FT has restored the factual integrity of the piece. The episode serves as a reminder that in controversies where legality, protest and political power intersect, accuracy about who is exercising judicial authority is foundational. Without it, even well-sourced analysis risks being read through a lens of avoidable doubt.