Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, said Ms Ammori could lawfully bring her challenge to the initial decision to proscribe Palestine Action, rather than have to wait for the outcome of the longer POAC process.

“An application to deproscribe, with a right of appeal to POAC, was not intended to be a means of challenging the initial decision,” she said in her ruling on Friday morning.

She said a judicial review would be a “quicker means of challenging the order proscribing Palestine Action, than applying to deproscribe”.

“Judicial review would enable the High Court to give an authoritative judgement on whether or not not it was lawful to proscribe Palestine Action.

“That judgment could then be relied on in criminal courts hearing charges against any person arrested in connection with their support of Palestine Action.”

A spokesperson for the Home Office said that it noted the Court of Appeal’s decision and would now carefully consider the implications.

“Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign. This has involved sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, as well as intimidation, alleged violence and serious injuries,” they said.

“Palestine Action remain a proscribed group and those who support them will face the full force of the law.

“Everyone should remember: supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing.”

But Ms Ammori said an attempt by the government to avoid judicial scrutiny had “backfired spectacularly” because the Court of Appeal had also ruled that she could challenge the ban on more grounds than had initially been the case.

“We now head into the judicial review in November with an even stronger legal footing,” she said in a statement.

“Arresting peaceful protesters and those disrupting the arms trade is a dangerous misuse of counter-terror resources.”

Ms Ammori also won a second related application to expand her case in November. This means she has permission to present wider grounds to the High Court about why she says the ban is unlawful.