UK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule
Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori has won a legal challenge against the decision to proscribe the group under anti-terrorism laws.
Key events
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Before the ban, Palestine Action had used direct action to target Israeli-linked companies in the UK, from occupying buildings and blocking access, to more disruptive methods such as spray-painting and damaging equipment. It particularly focused its demonstrations against factories of Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems, which the group describes on its website as its “main target”.
Founded in 2020 by activists Huda Ammori and Richard Barnard, Palestine Action campaigns against companies that it says are complicit in the “occupation, apartheid and genocide of Palestine”. In the wake of Israel’s war on Gaza, the group’s demonstrations intensified.
Police make an arrest outside the Royal Courts of Justice at the start of a legal challenge to the ban on Palestine Action in November. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian
Since the ban took effect, thousands of arrests have been linked to support for Palestine Action under terrorism laws, as well as ongoing protests and legal challenges. Critics of the ban argue that damaging property does not amount to terrorism, with the UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, commenting that the proscription “appears disproportionate and unnecessary”.
The government has argued that the ban was justified on national security grounds, and that it was proportionate given the alleged escalation in the group’s activities.
ShareProscription of Palestine Action ‘disproportionate’, judges rule
The high court upheld two grounds of challenge, including that the ban was a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
The president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Mr Justice Swift and Mrs Justice Steyn, said that “Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality”, but that proscription was still “disproportionate”.
In a 46-page judgment, she said: “A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition [of the Terrorism Act 2000].”
ShareHome secretary ‘disappointed’ by ruling, plans to appeal
Home secretary Shabana Mahmood said she was ‘disappointed’ by the ruling and that she plans to appeal it.
In a statement, she said:
I am disappointed by the court’s decision and disagree with the notion that banning this terrorist organisation is disproportionate.
“The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process, endorsed by parliament. The proscription does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause, another point on which the court agrees.
“As a former lord chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. Home secretaries must however retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the court of appeal.”
ShareBan will stay in place until government decides on appeal
Judges Victoria Sharp, Jonathan Swift and Karen Steyn said the ban will remain in place while the government considers whether to appeal.
A group of protesters outside the high court erupted into cheers and chanted “Free Palestine” after the ruling was given, the PA news agency reported.
People hold banners outside Royal Courts of Justice. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPAShare
Updated at 05.36 EST
Ammori: This is a monumental victory for fundamental freedoms and for Palestine
Ammori has released a statement describing the high court’s ruling as a “monumental victory” and that the government proscribed Palestine Action as a terror group “in a Trumpian abuse of power”.
She said:
“This is a monumental victory both for our fundamental freedoms here in Britain and in the struggle for freedom for the Palestinian people, striking down a decision that will forever be remembered as one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.
“Palestine Action is the first civil disobedience organisation that does not advocate for violence to be proscribed by the British Government as a ‘terrorist’ group, in a Trumpian abuse of power which would have seen this Labour Government proscribe the Suffragettes. This ban was unlawful, resulting in the unlawful arrest of nearly 3,000 people – among them priests, vicars, former magistrates and retired doctors – under terrorism laws for simply sitting in silence while holding signs reading: ‘I oppose genocide – I support Palestine Action’.
Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action. Photograph: Abdullah Bailey/AlamyShare
Updated at 05.23 EST
The co-founder of Palestine Action has won a legal challenge to the home secretary’s decision to ban the group under anti-terrorism laws.
The proscription of Palestine Action, which categorised it alongside the likes of Islamic State, was the first of a direct action protest group and attracted widespread condemnation as well as a civil disobedience campaign defying the ban, during which more than 2,000 people have been arrested.
On Friday, three judges, led by the president of the king’s bench division, Dame Victoria Sharp, ruled that the decision to proscribe the group was unlawful.
Read the full report by our legal affairs correspondent Haroon Siddique here:
ShareUK ban on Palestine Action unlawful, high court judges rule
Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori has won a legal challenge against the decision to proscribe the group under anti-terrorism laws.
Here are some images from outside the high court coming through the newswires this morning:
Protesters hold a banner outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty ImagesA demonstrator wearing a costume of the grim reaper outside the high court. Photograph: Jaimi Joy/ReutersA police officer observes protesters. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PAShare
The ruling, expected to begin at 10am, comes after a group of six Palestine Action activists were cleared of aggravated burglary last week over a break-in at an Israeli defence firm’s UK site.
The youngest of the group, Fatema Rajwani, 21, said the verdicts were a vindication of their cause.
After 18 months in jail, she was released on bail last Wednesday, having also been acquitted by a jury at Woolwich crown court of violent disorder in relation to the raid on the Elbit Systems factory in Filton, near Bristol, on 6 August 2024.
Rajwani told the Guardian: “The verdicts are a reflection of the reality that the first chance that the public had to decide what happened to us, they vindicated us. It is plain to see that the British public do not want their citizens to be scapegoated for this Labour government’s political aims, they do not want to be criminalised for supporting a people’s inalienable right to freedom, to dignity, and to self-determination.”
Read the full report by our legal affairs correspondent Haroon Siddique here:
ShareOpening summary
The high court is set to rule on whether the Home Office’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group was lawful.
Huda Ammori, the co-founder of Palestine Action, took legal action against the government to challenge the decision by then-home secretary Yvette Cooper to ban the group under the Terrorism Act 2000.
The ban, which took effect on 5 July 2025, made membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
During a hearing in November, a lawyer for Ammori told the court in London that the ban was unlawful and should be quashed, saying the group had engaged in an “honourable tradition” of direct action and civil disobedience prior to proscription.
The court heard that there had been more than 2,000 arrests after Palestine Action’s proscription, including “priests, teachers, pensioners, retired British Army officers” and an “81-year-old former magistrate”.
Lawyers representing the Home Office said the proscription had had the intended effect of “disrupting PA’s [Palestine Action] pattern of escalatory conduct” and had “not prevented people from protesting in favour of the Palestinian people or against Israel’s actions in Gaza”.
Follow our blog to get the latest updates from the ruling.
Updated at 05.01 EST