In a ruling that legal experts are calling one of the most significant defenses of protest rights in modern British history, the High Court on Friday declared the UK government’s decision to ban the pro Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action under terrorism legislation unlawful and disproportionate.
The judgment, delivered by a panel of three senior judges including the President of the King’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, Mr Justice Jonathan Swift and Mrs Justice Karen Steyn, quashes the proscription order, but only for now. The ban remains temporarily in force pending a further hearing on February 20 to determine remedies and the government’s likely appeal.
The decision comes eight months after then, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proscribed Palestine Action on July 5, 2025, making membership or support for the group a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison. More than 2,500 people have been arrested since for alleged support, many for simply posting online or attending protests under the group’s banner.
Background: From Direct Action to ‘Terrorist’ Label
Palestine Action emerged in 2020 as a network of activists focused on disrupting what they describe as Britain’s complicity in Israel’s military actions, particularly arms exports. The group has targeted factories linked to Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems, which supplies drones and other equipment to the Israeli military. Tactics have included breaking into sites, splashing red paint symbolizing blood, and damaging equipment, acts the group insists are non-violent direct action aimed at halting arms production.
The tipping point came in the summer of 2025 amid escalating tensions over the Gaza conflict. Activists damaged aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, prompting the government to act. In a statement to Parliament on June 23, 2025, Cooper said the group met the legal threshold for proscription because its activities involved “serious damage to property” for a political cause, the definition of terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The move placed Palestine Action alongside groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, a step critics immediately condemned as an overreach. It was the first time a domestic protest organization had been proscribed in this way, sparking a wave of defiance: thousands publicly declared support, leading to mass arrests and a legal limbo for those charged.
Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action and the claimant in the judicial review, described the ban at the time as a “Trumpian abuse of power” designed to silence opposition to the war in Gaza.
The Legal Challenge: Rights Under Siege
Ammori’s challenge, filed just days before the ban took effect, argued that the proscription violated fundamental human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly and association).
Intervening in the case were Amnesty International UK, the civil liberties group Liberty, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter terrorism, Professor Ben Saul. They contended that while some of Palestine Action’s tactics involved criminal damage, labeling the entire organization as terrorist was disproportionate and risked criminalizing legitimate protest.
The three day hearing in December 2025 heard arguments that the Home Secretary had failed to properly weigh the impact on free speech, ignored less restrictive alternatives like prosecuting individual crimes, and breached her own published policy on proscription.
That policy requires the Secretary of State to consider not just whether an organization is “concerned in terrorism” but also factors like the nature and scale of its activities, the threat it poses to the UK, and whether proscription is proportionate overall.
The Court’s Reasoning: Disproportionate and Policy Flawed
In a 46-page judgment released on Friday, the court agreed on two key grounds.
First, the judges ruled that the Home Secretary had not properly applied her own proscription policy. While acknowledging that some Palestine Action activities “amounted to terrorism” under the statutory definition, such as property damage intended to influence government policy, the court found they lacked the “level, scale and persistence” required to justify banning the entire group.
“The nature and scale of Palestine Action’s activities had not yet reached the level, scale and persistence to warrant proscription,” the judgment stated.
Second, and more significantly, the proscription was deemed a disproportionate interference with Convention rights. The judges noted that it created a “very significant interference with the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly,” chilling not just the group’s members but broader protest movements.
The ruling explicitly rejected the government’s argument that national security concerns justified the blanket ban, emphasizing that ordinary criminal law was sufficient to address unlawful acts.
“This decision is not about whether Palestine Action’s methods are lawful, It’s about whether the state can weaponize counter-terrorism powers to suppress political dissent.”
The court proposed quashing the decision but stayed the order to allow arguments over the ban’s ongoing status and any appeal by the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who has indicated the government will challenge the ruling.
Reactions: A Victory for Rights — and a Warning
Amnesty International UK, which intervened in the case, hailed the judgment as “a vital affirmation of the right to protest at a time when it has been under sustained and deliberate attack.”
In a statement, Tom Southerden, Amnesty’s Law and Human Rights Director, said: “The High Court’s decision sends a clear message: the government cannot simply reach for sweeping counter-terrorism powers to silence critics or suppress dissent. The implications are profound. Thousands of peaceful protesters, including those involved in the Defend Our Juries campaign, have been arrested for something that should never have been a crime.”
Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty UK’s Chief Executive, added: “Today’s ruling is a crucial defense of the right to protest… We will continue to expose attempts to erode these freedoms.”
Huda Ammori, speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice amid cheering supporters, called it a “monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people.”
“The ban has backfired spectacularly,” she said. “It exposed the government’s desperation to crush opposition to the genocide in Gaza.”
The UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul welcomed the finding, noting it aligned with his submissions that the ban breached international human rights obligations on freedoms of association, assembly and expression.
Quakers in Britain urged the immediate lifting of the proscription, warning that counter-terror laws were being misused to undermine “freedom of conscience, religion and peaceful dissent.”
For the government, the ruling is an embarrassing reversal. Officials had defended the ban as necessary to protect public order and national security interests. Mahmood’s office said it would appeal, arguing the decision undermined efforts to combat extremism.
Broader Implications: A Line in the Sand?
The case has unfolded against a backdrop of intensifying restrictions on protest in the UK, particularly around Palestine-related activism. Since October 2023, police have made thousands of arrests at pro-Palestine demonstrations, with new laws expanding stop-and-search powers and criminalizing certain slogans.
Legal observers say the judgment could have ripple effects beyond Palestine Action. It sets a high bar for future proscriptions and reinforces judicial scrutiny of executive overreach in national security matters.
For the more than 2,500 people arrested under the ban, the ruling offers hope but no immediate relief. Their cases remain in limbo, with prosecutors facing potential collapse of charges if the proscription is ultimately quashed.
As protesters gathered outside the court on Friday, waving Palestinian flags and holding signs reading “It’s Not a Crime to Act Against Genocide,” the mood was one of cautious celebration.
“This is bigger than Palestine Action,” said one activist. “It’s about whether Britain still believes in the right to dissent.”