They have skipped reading the ruling or the press summary and misunderstood the ruling. This is a preliminary ruling (clarification: an open judgement). Quoting from the press summary:

The Divisional Court has today handed down its judgment, and allowed the claim on two of the four grounds of challenge.

It indicates that the claimant had grounds to dispute the Home Secretary’s measure (proscription), but the court has not yet issued relief (has not yet canceled the proscription).

Valid grounds for challenge, one example of many:

15. The court instead measured the interference with the Convention rights by reference to the restrictions imposed by criminal offences consequent on proscription, and also by the extent to which people would exercise self-restraint in conducting lawful activities. The court’s overall conclusion was that, even discounting Palestine Action’s non-peaceful activities, proscription did result in a very significant interference with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly. [116] to [124]

16. Since the Home Secretary’s policy had not been properly applied, it follows that the interference with the right of freedom of speech and freedom of association did not meet the requirement under section 6 of the HRA that any interference with Convention rights must be prescribed by law. [125]

Current status:

The proscription Order remains in force until further order of the court. It therefore remains an offence: /…/